Jump to content

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HappyJackWagon

  1. Yeah, this isn't just an issue of one person not knowing, or one leader giving direction. This is a thing. It may seem silly to most of us but there's enough uncertainty about it that people wonder, ask, and leaders have had to address it.
  2. But doesn't it strike you as odd that they would need to tell you (people) that it's OK to remove garments for relations? I think there is some truth to the story. Much more truth than the 3 Nephite stories
  3. Yeah, but I don't see that as opposed to current teachings of honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law. I think it's widely known both in and out of the church that a BIG part of the church ceasing the practice of polygamy was directly related to government laws and practices. So if the government could influence the cessation, why couldn't it also influence the renewal of the practice? I just don't see it as an insurmountable issue for the church IF it decided to reinstitute (or at least allow) the practice of polygamy. There would definitely be issues. Some people would leave, some would join, but the church would go on.
  4. I don't think it would be inevitable for the church to turn into a "higher law/lower law" church, per se. At least not any more than it already is regarding temple recommend holding versus non-recommend holding. But it would depend on how it was taught by leadership. If some upper leaders started living the principle but affirmed that it was a personal choice and not any kind of requirement or status issue, I don't see much of a problem. Also, I'm not sure that having fundamentalists join the church would necessarily doom it. It certainly wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I think there is still a lot of common ground shared. I think success would most likely hinge...as it always does...on loyalty to and acceptance of church leadership as God's chosen. In my mind, that would be the more difficult bridge to cross than marital status as polygamous/monogamous. The church did both in the past so it seems possible they could do both again in the future.
  5. They certainly weren't an every day kind of thing. For example, none of the men with Joseph in Carthage (including Joseph and Hyrum) were wearing the garment. The garment has undergone many stylistic variations over time just as the policy about wearing them has changed. Back in the 1920's there were efforts of returning to temple only wearing, but ultimately it stayed as an everyday thing at that point. I don't recall when it became every day.
  6. Would it be impossible for the church to simply accept "legal marriage" however that is defined? There may be a few people rushing out to become polygamists if it became legal but I suspect the vast majority would choose to remain monogamous. But would it really have to be one or the other?
  7. The answer is very simple: Modern/continuing revelation. Belief and claims of continuing revelation provide the church the avenue to make any change it deems necessary or righteous or useful or restorative. Seriously, the church doesn't have to be hindered by the past if it chooses to break away from it, or embrace it. It only matters on what the current leader(s) decide. But I'm with you. It's hard to imagine the church doing this and surviving (at least in its current state).
  8. That's how repentance works? Break a commandment- continue breaking the commandment - covenant to be faithful to the person with whom you are breaking the commandment- receive forgiveness. Really? Is that what you are claiming Did you think that through ?
  9. So I've got a problem with the church for the way it treats LGBT community and you have a problem with the LGBT community for the way it treats you. That's fair. The church is referring to the entire LGBTQ community as SSA, not just those who identify as gay. Would you admit that in the LGBT community you are the small minority who likes the SSA reference? IS it ok to upset and offend a majority of the group because there are a few like you who prefer SSA? When I hear the church talk about SSA it comes across to me (an outsider) that they are actually speaking to a much smaller group than the LGBT community. They are actually only speaking to the small minority of the LGBT community who prefer the SSA designation. But when they refer to gay people as SSA, they are purposely speaking to people in a way they generally know the people don't like. They are labeled in a way they don't like and don't identify with, so they don't likely listen to the church much. Maybe the church's goal is to alienate members of the LGBT community who do not prefer SSA. LGBT reject the title. Cool. Just like you reject the label gay. Cool. But it would seem to me that the church should strive to speak more sensitively in a way people are most likely to listen, unless of course that's not really what they want in the first place.
  10. Again with your strawman. WHO has said that you must refer to someone as "gay" if they prefer "SSA"? Who? Where has it been said. You're fighting a boogie man of your own creation. If KLindley prefers SSA. Cool. I've got no problem with that. But when a large organization like the church chooses to refer to people in a way that most in the community find offensive, then there's a problem. But round and round we go in this discussion. Do what you want. The church can do what it wants. And people will criticize the church's intentional choice to refer to a group that the group generally finds offensive. Everyone does what they want and the church continues to burn bridges. It's nothing new. We're all kind of getting used to it
  11. You completely avoided discussing the idea behind the post in favor of mockery. Well done! Your post was very funny, cute, lame, meaningless.
  12. Yes, you have the choice to use a phrase to describe a community even though the vast majority of that community finds it offensive. The church can do the same thing. Anyone can choose to be offensive toward anyone they want. But even though you have the choice to use an offensive phrase, is it "justified"? You and I will have different answers to that question. No one's stopping you, but that doesn't mean you're right. Would others be justified in shaming you for purposely using an offensive phrase? You and I may have different answers to that question. You don't control what others say, just as they have no control over you. But "justified" is a moral judgement. It sounds like you are attempting to support a different kind of political correctness from the one you are mocking. ETA- I'll add that you seem to be most concerned with how non-LGBTQ should or should not identify the LGBTQ community, and not how the LGBTQ community chooses to self-identify. I haven't seen anyone upset about how a person self-identifies. The argument/debate seems to be centered around whether or not people outside of the community will respect the identification the vast majority people within that community chooses.
  13. I'm not asking about what modern prophets say happened in the past. I'm asking if there is any evidence from the time that this teaching existed. I'd be really curious to see anthropological/cultural evidence of the teaching. I'm not aware of any, but I would imagine it would exist, right? We know tons about past civilizations and it would be interesting to see if the teaching of eternal marriage existed in antiquity. Because IF that was God's teaching from the beginning, and it was such a big deal, it would seem there would be some kind of record. Oral histories that eventually were written down...that kind of thing.
  14. Ok. Good. I didn't think so. And it's fine that you don't answer the CFR since it was directed at Alter Diem. You shouldn't feel the responsibility of answering his CFR. IF it happened on the other thread (which I also doubt) I find it odd to make claims on this thread about it. @alter idem CFR still stands. I think there is a gross mischaracterization of what poster's have written as well as an obvious straw man you took glee in knocking down. IF there have been calls for a "ban" of the use of the phrase "SSA", I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you should retract your claims.
  15. I know that's what is taught now, but are you suggesting that eternal marriage was the original teaching about marriage? If so, is there any evidence of that. I'm curious about scriptural evidence but also any anthropological evidence dating way back. Any writings, pictograms, hieroglyphics...anything that would support the idea that eternal marriage was an early teaching? I think there is a difference between "proclamation" and a "revelation". I wonder why, IF it was revelation, the prophet would have phrased it as a "proclamation". Revelation would seem to carry much more wait than a proclamation. In recent years, the proclamation has been referred to as "revelatory" but I don't recall that it has been dubbed "revelation". IF it is revelation, why isn't it included in scripture? Is it good for man to be alone? No. Using your logic, one could argue that there is also scriptural basis supporting gay marriage as preferential to remaining single as a gay person. The truth is, there is VERY little in scripture about Hom0sxuality while there is a lot about other subjects like fornication, adultery, divorce. Would anyone argue that this is a very large issue in our day and age? Wasn't the BoM written for our day? Yet there is nothing addressing the issue. Curious.
  16. I think I missed something. Has someone called for the banning of "SSA" on this forum? If so, CFR please. I'm sorry I missed it. If not, I'd say it doesn't take much bravery to stand up to a ban that has never been called for.
  17. I'm confused. In one sentence you infer that it's good for people to attempt to adjust their language to preferences of others, yet you also seem to defend the church using a description that many/most LGBTQ individuals don't enjoy. I have no personal issue with SSA, except when it is purposely used to describe people who don't like being described as SSA. I think the church is aware that many in the LGBTQ community don't appreciate the exclusive use of SSA, yet they still do it. Why? Why not adjust? Why not use both terms, multiple terms. No one will be pleased all of the time but it sure seems that virtually everyone could be pleased some of the time. Refusing to call someone gay, even though that's their personal preference, as a matter of policy is offensive. That's why people are pushing against the church's use of it. I don't think anyone would care if they used SSA & gay & h0mosxual.
  18. Thanks, Bluebell. That's exactly what I was saying. The opposition I'm seeing from Scott, and others, still seems to center on the misunderstanding that I (and others) are stating the church should exclusively use "gay". Why use exclusive language at all? I understand the argument to go with the majority position (ie- 90% of LGBTQ population prefers 1 phrase, then use that phrase). This would generally work, yet it would still upset some people and it's really unnecessary. There's no need to use only one phrase. Simply accept that people have different preferences and incorporate both. Refusing to incorporate one sends the message that the speaker knows better than the person being identified. Bednar's talk was highly problematic, but beyond that, there really seems to be a church style guide that uses SSA over gay (almost) exclusively.
  19. IMO it's totally up to the individual to self-define. If he's more comfortable with SSA instead of gay, I've got no problem with that. But what would happen if others refused to accept him in the term he defines. IOW- He's comfortable with SSA, but what if everyone, or even the church refused to use the term he was comfortable with, and instead chose to use the term he is uncomfortable with. It would reasonably cause him some stress. Likewise, if individuals identify as gay but others (and the church) refuse to use that term in favor of the term the individual isn't comfortable with, then it would likewise cause stress and discomfort. Not everyone is comfortable with the same things so how can the church refer to gay or SSA in a way that is respectful to everyone? IMO it would likely involve a synthesis of using both phrases at different times. It would seem harmful to totally shun one word in favor of another, knowing it will upset a population. In this case I'd suspect that the SSA preference would be the minority choice amongst the LGBTQ community. So if the church digs its heals in and will only refer to SSA, or flat out state there are no h0m0sxual members of the church, it causes damage unnecessarily. Making absolute comments about what is or isn't an appropriate self-definition is the problem. I don't think there would be too many people upset by an individual choosing SSA over gay. It's up to the individual. But how the institution responds to those choices makes a difference.
  20. I just saw 3 separate friends on Social Media today post favorably about states banning Sharia Law and suggest that the entire country should pass laws banning Sharia. Each of these 3 friends are extremely conservative and each have written posts in the past few days about how freedom of religion is under attack in the US yet are thrilled with bans of Sharia Law. Now, there is Sharia Law and then there is SHARIA LAW. For example, I would expect everyone here to agree that honor killings as a part of Sharia Law are bad. But Sharia is not interpreted by most Muslims as including Honor Killings. IOW- there is much in Sharia Law that is really just the free exercise of religion, even if it does seem harsh/incompatible to our sensibilities. So it seems hypocritical to me when I see friends bemoaning the supposed loss of their religious freedom while simultaneously calling for the loss of other groups religious freedom. Am I wrong about that? Claims about the Equality Act strike me similarly. People are very afraid and up in arms about any perceived loss to their freedom whilst simultaneously supporting fewer freedoms for minority groups. Again, seems hypocritical to me.
  21. So... before this change a student could be summoned to the honor code office to be told they are accused of violating the honor code. BUT they wouldn't be told what they were accused of doing, who accused them, or what the process would be. WOW! Thank goodness for progress. I saw many faithful members who were upset about the protests. Most of them admitted changes needed to be made but were opposed to the method used to communicate dissatisfaction. They were opposed to "protests". Yet it seems to have worked in this case. Nice job, protesters!
  22. This was most definitely a staged event. I'm always curious on this kind of thing if the ward response made this a bigger deal and prolonged the speaker's statement, or if it would be better to let them go and then sit down. I have no way of knowing but I suspect the women were prepared to take a significant period of time. If someone stood up and shared a brief 2-3 minute statement I'd feel a little differently about it. In any case, I think the Bishop handled it pretty well. It would be a nightmare to manage that kind of thing in a productive way. On the other hand, the guy at the end that just about jumped the pew to take the woman's phone, did not handle it well. I expect we'll continue to see these kinds of events because there are people who have something to say and they have no way of saying it directly to top church leaders. I suspect the Q15 are probably being made aware of this situation, so in a sense the protesters were successful. I'm of the opinion that there is a severe communication problem in the church where there is a wall of separation between the average member and leaders who are decision makers. Although I hate to see these kinds of spectacles, I can understand the desperation some people may feel to be heard. It seems clear to me that what these ladies did isn't the most productive or appropriate way to communicate with leaders, and I think there's an opportunity for the church to bridge this communication gap. ETA- Southern MO said it much better than I did
  23. CFR- I don't think so. CFR- I don't think so This sounds like propaganda to me, and likely the kind of things we'll here from "political specialists" at church
  24. But is this only for "local" participation? Even so, I met with county commissioners a couple of weeks ago. Even though federal politics had nothing to do with the issue we were discussing, it sure came up. Why? Because the philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals pop up in virtually everything that is done. We were talking about the difference between collecting county taxes based on sales tax versus property tax and I got to hear all about conservative philosophy. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but the philosophical distinctions come up on virtually any issue. I think it's unavoidable.
  25. I think that will be top of mind for people who hold this calling. It will likely be a part of the training. Which is why it becomes a problem. How likely is it that a person can influence another towards greater participation while not making any judgements about what/who is good and wise or wicked. Politics invites comparison and judgement. It's kind of a requirement in understanding issues and candidates. So if a person feels strongly that one party is pro-life and the other is pro-abortion, will that not influence them in the way the encourage others to participate? As you mentioned previously, politics are extremely contentious and the country is divided. I've literally heard in sacrament meeting a talk about how Republicanism is the Lord's way and Democrats reflect Satan's plan. It feels like having a calling centered on politics and/or political activity will only increase these kinds of comparisons in the church. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I mostly fear for people who really don't care much about politics. I think they are easily influenced by people they trust even though they may not have a strong personal understanding of issues and candidates.
×
×
  • Create New...