Jump to content

Anonymous Mormon

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Anonymous Mormon

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am glad that the church notes members who have past issues with child abuse, church funds stealing, and these other issues. Some of them I could see being something that you would want to repent of and eventually request removal of (such as plural marriage or homosexual activity). But overall, it's good to not allow someone the chance to repeat the same sin in a different ward. Is it true that records also note if you came home from your mission early or went home 'without honor?'
  2. Apologizing is not always clear cut. Should you apologize for an action if the final outcome wasn't what you hoped, but the action wasn't wrong (and maybe was the best course)? Does apologizing immediately place blame on the one apologizing and say it was a wrong action? For example, should the church apologize for blacks not holding the Priesthood if it WAS God's will to not give all members the Priesthood in the early history of the church? God has placed bans on Priesthood service in the past based upon lineage. Should the prophet apologize for the Priesthood not being granted to anyone outside of the tribe of Levi as well if no Prophet is yet on record of doing so? Or your example of Bishop interviews. The church will continue to have Bishops interview youth about chastity issues. So if the church apologized that some Bishops handled it inappropriately would this be enough for you? I am 100% certain the church's leaders are sorry to see some of it's bishops who have acted poorly in the past and I'd bet that they have expressed how sorry they are to the families who have had hurt by these individuals.
  3. I think that was lesson 42 in the old Gospel Doctrine manual released when Brigham Young was prophet: "Lesson 42 - The Book of Joshua and the Destruction of the Wicked The instructor should begin the class with an attention gathering exercise where they write the words "Ethnic Cleansing" on the board and then engage the class in a thoughtful dialogue of what this term means to them based upon their study of the Old Testament and the most recent General Conference talks." *see "Old Testament Sunday School Manual 3rd Ed - Published 1867 SLC, Utah"
  4. I think you misunderstood my post. I agree that the church and the majority of its leaders want to be more kind and loving of LGBT people. But I also believe that a large percentage of those who want the church to change its doctrine on SSM & homosexual practices are actually wanting to attack and destroy the church. It's the same audience who complained about the Nov 2015 policy and then when the church switched the policy instead of saying, "Oh good" they said, "Oh look, the prophet doesn't really talk to God."
  5. THIS!!!!!! At the end of the rainbow in every discussion of LGBT is this kind of attitude. SSA (the same-six attackers) inevitably don't just want the church to be more kind and loving of LGBT people, they actually feel the church shackles, controls, is fallacious, false, and no good. And the whole LGBT thing is a means to attack current church members and leaders. I think it's great that the church is being more kind to those whose belief systems don't match our own. I think that the church is doing great to help its members focus on loving, not judging, those in our neighborhoods and communities. But I would never be willing to join in an LGBT parade or put an LGBT flag in my yard because when you go over the rainbow you find a bunch of people with this attitude above who hate the church and want to destroy it. And they use LGBT as a way to attack church members and leaders who believe that it is a sin to participate in same-sex marriage or any homosexual activity. These attacks on the church and clubbing it over LGBT issues is only going to get more frequent and fierce (just look at the history of posts on this board for to see how it works). Especially as the Church maintains its standards and holds to the teachings of the Christ* and the proclamation on the family. *Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
  6. I have been thinking about this last sentence since you posted it a few days ago. I am curious to know of the examples you had in mind when you say 'Every single time.' Also, I am curious to know in your view, where the line of tolerance begins and ends. How do not tolerate sin but allow others to live their lives in a way that isn't impeding them? How do we show love to an individual while not accepting their sins, if they want to let their sins define them?
  7. Can you expound on these two ideas? Specifically: -If the ancient church had the Priesthood necessary to do baptisms and confirmations (gift of Holy Ghost), then why couldn't they have done so for the dead if allowed by God? Couldn't this have been done under the Priesthood power they had (or the 'appendage of the Melch priesthood 'allowed to them)? -What do you mean by Gates of the Spirit World hadn't been opened. My understanding is Christ taught and 'opened' the gates of the Spirit World immediately after his death. And after his resurrection saints started arising. Paul's Epistles happened much later. So what do you mean by this? Thanks in advance
  8. I too am glad to see that the church is working to try to reduce hate and contention. I think this is a good goal for all of us as individuals and institutions. That said, I am not nearly as offended by the use of the word "counterfeit" as everyone else seems to be and don't think it's worth this much effort in a discussion. First, it said counterfeit lifestyles, not marriages were an attack on the traditional family - I can think of lots of lifestyles outside of LGBT that would fit this description. Second, even if he was referring to marriage the legal definition of SSM at that time in the majority of the US states SSM was technically counterfeit (definition: An illegal imitation), just like if California had released a new dollar bill that was deemed counterfeit by the majority of the states. I think that taken in a legal context, it would have to be considered less offensive than if someone used the term now. But, in an effort to reduce hate and contention, I think it's good to try to use less divisive and offensive language. So I think it's a good word to stop using in this context
  9. Yes, I feel like this thread is quickly descending into what I described previously - the SSA (Same-Six Attackers) are going to all pile on with negative comments about the church and its leaders (such as Elder Perry who was a kind-hearted, loving Apostle) because it maintains the Christian values as taught in the Bible - that a Man and Woman is what God wants for a marriage.
  10. Your thoughts and suggestion were noted and appreciated.
  11. Maybe the term 'lots' is too broad. I honestly feel like it's only ~6 people in any given thread who are always attacking and negative about everything the church does. Their primary repeating theme is that 1) the church is hypocrites (receive tithing but not help the poor, do not show enough love to those who sin, etc) and 2) the church leaders are not receiving guidance from God / the prophet is not the Lord's mouthpiece. I usually think of them as The SSA (the same-six attackers)
  12. I am happy to reconsider what I wrote above. However, I think what I said is pretty accurate and that it's a fair assessment of what goes on with this message board: I honestly think that this is what happens on this board. Let's take the "Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage" thread. This thread has a good question about marriage/divorce and lots of people chime in with great responses. However a small minority of posters ignore, twist, and muddle the responses, then turn the thread into a discussion on same-sex marriage, and then make statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has." I honestly feel that this happens on too many threads. I don't think my statement in my previous post is incorrect or wrong. Sadly I choose to limit my time on this board because I find it brings the spirit of contention to my thinking, which is too bad because I really just want to have some good discussions about Church theology and culture. I think I am now derailing this nice thread on the video, so I am happy to move on with my complaints elsewhere.
  13. Daniel - Thank you for responding to the actual question to re-write this statement in a way that doesn't negate the teachings of the church on family. There are so many people up-in-arms against the church's teaching that Marriage is between a man and woman and any time any one mentions that this is the doctrine and they don't believe it will change they are barraged with criticism. I typically assume that the offensive part to everyone in that camp is the 'marriage is between man and woman' and that they just jump on words like 'counterfeit' and 'offensive' as a means to have a chance to call the church or its leaders bigots. The fact that you actually took time to re-write this sentence in a way that maintains current church doctrine helps me see that you are truly bothered and offended by those specific words, as opposed to an entire doctrine. It also helps me to better understand how I might choose my words more carefully so as not to accidentally cause offense. This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this), then I assume that nothing I can say will ever be non-offensive, so I don't try to change the words that I use.
  14. This entire topic is the epitome of what I find frustrating about this forum. In nearly every topic the same 6 people all post negative, condescending, and rude things about the church. They take the most negative side of the topic and find a way to club the church and its members. They use statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has." (note: I know the OP gave permission to change the topic - it is still annoying and what I dislike about this forum) Every time anyone gives an honest opinion in answer to a question they tear it down. Often when someone quotes a specific modern day prophet or apostle they point out any weakness/mistake of that prophet/apostle to automatically disregard the actual statement at hand. Every time someone answers with a sincere thought-out post it is immediately countered with the same anti-Mormon arguments. Amazingly, about 30% of topics devolve into the same old commentary of 'the Church is bigoted and hypocritical for how it treats Gays/Lesbians.' The rest of of the topics seem to devolve into snits about either a) the church is hypocrites (not enough love, practiced polygamy, accept tithing but neglect the poor, etc.) or b) that current church leaders don't receive revelation and are just making it up. As someone who believes in the church's doctrines and who believes that President Nelson is a prophet who receives revelation from the Lord, the trajectory of comments on this board gets very tiring. It makes me not want to post at all. I some times feel like maybe I should keep posting just so someone rebuts all of the negativity because I know there are those reading who are looking for real answers and its important they see some. I respect those who do keep posting even though they must tire of it. It is tiring that so many topics have to become a discussion on LGBT issues. Can we please start a new sub-forum outside of General and News called LGBT Issues? Then we make a rule that all LGBT topics must be in that forum and we can stop derailing all of the other threads with LGBT debates. Then I can just ignore that forum and enjoy conversations that aren't debates about LGBT. Honestly, the constant and repetitive critical comments from the same 6 people is just tiring and makes me not enjoy this forum. If you don't know/what who I am referring to, then Follow The Likes. If you follow the trail of Likes you will see who/what I am referring to.
  15. In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on!
×
×
  • Create New...