Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

An apology will not help anything.  The church is wrong from first principles.  Or so say its opponents.

I have always admired David Bokovoy and thought him to be a brilliant man and a great thinker.  But it appears that even the elect can be deceived -- for he says that he couldn't understand the policy.  Yet even a benighted pipsqueak of an intellect such as myself could understand exactly where it was coming from -- maybe that's it, I'm too stupid to understand that it was wrong?  No, I am not.  I also understand that society is demanding at 100-db levels of scream that homosexual behavior must be completely normalized and accepted by all members of society.  And that no word whatsoever be said against it.  It is already the law in some places that saying "Homosexual behavior is a sin" can get you fined or jailed.  The time is coming, I'm fairly certain, when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be required to shut up about homosexuality, and probably also be required to perform weddings between people of the same sex.  

If you can't see that the days described in the Book of Revelation are getting ever closer, you are being willfully blind.  

I guess its pretty obvious we all see things and interpret event like this through different lenses and filters. David has one set, you have on, I have another. And filters and lenses can and do change. 

As for the Church being forced to perform gay weddings, I think that highly unlikely at least in the United States.  And if it happened the Church would simply stop performing marriages, turn it over to civil authorities and make the temple sealing a church ordinance rather than a marriage. This is what they do already in nations where it is required to have a civil authority perform a marriage.  

Personally, just so you know, even though there is much the church does that I do not like, I would oppose any imposition on the church to perform gay marriages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have a beloved family dog at home that we adopted from the county shelter some 11 years ago. A more intelligent, gentle, affectionate animal I have never known. 

But over the years I’ve noticed how remarkably his attitude and behavior mirror that of those who interact with him. That is, he never barks, growls or bares his teeth in hostility unless he is approached aggressively or in what he perceives to be a threatening or menacing manner.

That’s an interesting analogy, but not one that applies here from what I’ve seen.

Who attacked either of those guys first to cause them to react in such an aggressive and ugly manner and language?  Please supply a link to the post.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2019 at 1:53 PM, DBMormon said:

For every parent who had a LGBT child take their life over the past three and a half years where that suicide had any causality from the Church's policy, the Church has with this admitted such was in vain.  Sad.  Sad that we place belief in the myth of a true church and God talking to these men above the lives of their precious kids.  My heart goes out to each of these parents as they wrestle with the unnecessary loss of their child because of a POS policy claimed to have been the mind and will of God. 

Have you read Kevin Christensen article associated LGBT responses to the church?  I can relate to much though not all of the things described in it and it rings true.  

When I was at school someone dove 5 stories to land head first on the brick patio falling past my room.  I was told they tried to stand for about half a second before they died.  I remember reflecting back upon my struggles with the non-academic nature of my unique college experience.  I would have walked out the gate and been done with it all.  Many LDS walk out the gate and are done with it all.  A number of LDS live with the tension of their desires conflicting with what they have been taught.  Others relieve this tension different ways.  "Any causality" is perhaps a low enough bar to clear, but profound causality is not.

You are an emotional fellow.  I tend to be more cold and rational.  I am not one to condemn your emotional engagement with the gospel, but I will call it out. There are many many other responses than to blame God or believe God is absent in the church when things happen in ways that feel bad to us, seem wrong to us, or ...

 

I have thought about inspiration when it comes to establishing a policy and then removing a policy 3-4 years.  My personal assessment of this issue and of God's foresight is that God would not do it this way.  It is quite possible that I am wrong and God would in fact "do it this way."  I am definitely creative enough to explain what MIGHT be involved in God doing it this way.  But, I do not need to do this.  I have already acknowledged that when I hear the voice of God, there is at least one fallible human involved in the conversation.  I have long extended such a recognition to leaders of the church.  

But, if the production of the Book of Mormon is, "a level of genius that puts him (Joseph Smith) in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness" I have seen (or you have seen, or more rarefied IMO than this - oh, and my 14 year old daughter is reading Shakespeare she has seen enough genius to make such a statement very POWERFUL), my intellect must make a choice as to how to handle things that are done by God, or God's Church, or some men; that are not consistent with how my intellect would do them.  At the end of the day, until I have a good reason to believe that God was not involved in the production of the BOM and/or God is not still involved in the teaching and spread of the gospel through the CoJCoLDS, my intellect will need to deal with things that I would do differently (if I had perfect foresight and ... or just in general).  I still do not agree with the positions embraced by Jim Bennett, but they are at least a rational response to the messiness he (and I) perceives in the church AND the existence of the Book of Mormon.

 

As Kevin's article should make clear to folks who think deeply about it, this issue is complex.  I place little weight upon what a society that believes sex is a tool to sell me shampoo reasons about the proper relationship between love, sex, and families.  That being said, as I stated in my first post on this thread, I expect more changes in the future.  Until I have good reason to reject the divinity of the Book of Momron, I will need to use my fallible intellect to integrate future changes into my understanding of God and His Church.  Oh, and while I am not the most spiritually in tune fellow, I do not wish to neglect such things either.

Charity, TOm

Edited by TOmNossor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, we are responsible for our own feelings. I cannot force you to "feel" anything. 

What you should take away from my statement is that sexuality is highly flexible. That argument you hear all the time, "We are born this way!" That is balderdash for the vast majority of people. My niece proves that point. When she was young she dated boys. When she got out of college she dated girls and got into a rather long-term relationship with a girl. After they broke up, she started dating men again. What way was she born?  What choices were available to her?  She has obviously chosen different things at different times in her life and to my knowledge, she was relatively happy in both kinds of relationships. 

I don't think anyone should live their lives in fear of offending those who are seeking to be offended. I am just as susceptible to being PC as the next individual, but I try to resist it. 

A quotation was recently sent to me in my daily email from Quotations, "Being politically correct means saying what's polite rather than what's accurate. I like to be accurate. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I always tried to be correct, not politically correct."  

Well then to not be PC I would suggest you educate yourself on the [spectrum of human sexuality from the one side of being very heterosexual to the other end of being very homosexual.  Humans can fall at varying points along this spectrum.  Apparently your niece falls more mid road and acts on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

that should have been the parents’ decision  as it now is under the new policy. 

Not really.  Their decision is part of the process, but not the whole process just as before.

The bishop, instead of the First Presidency, will be deciding on behalf of the Church (if parents decide they approve) if it is appropriate or not, just as some leader does in every case of baptism.  (Bishops were part of the previous process as they would have been deciding whether to submit an appeal on behalf of the parents/child...don't mean to imply local leaders were removed from the process...more like another step added to it in my view and now removed, with a greater emphasis on the necessity of local leaders to determine if parents understand implications of blessings and membership.)

As is appropriate imo.  If a parent insisted a kid be allowed to join an advanced gymnastic club, but the coaches saw he wasn't ready to participate at that level, they would have the right and moral obligation to refuse his participation imo.

The Church is a community where members benefit each other by being able to support each other and receive support in certain, prescribed ways...just as a community club works together to provide a supportive, often educational experience for its members.  Some flexibility is desirable, but too much destroys the benefits of participation and would lead to it being meaningless to be a member (for example if the kid never did gymnastics with the team because his parents refused to have him learn the basics).  Therefore it is important that there be leaders instructing on the requirements of membership and evaluating intent and ability to fill them (and many of those requirements in the Church are simply a desire to work at something, no one expects perfection or even partial achievement for many things, but a desire to try is at least needed, imo).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, why me said:

I don't know. My answer: we just need to wait for the outcome if children of same sex parents are baptized and if the church attends church. Should the teacher be sensitive  to such a child when talking about temple marriage and being chaste? The church does not recognize same sex marriage.

I teach a lot of things to my yw and seminary kids that is not practiced in the home.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s an interesting analogy, but not one that applies here from what I’ve seen.

Who attacked either of those guys first to cause them to react in such an aggressive and ugly manner and language?  Please supply a link to the post.

Is anyone being educated or entertained by this side discussion at this point? I know how easy it is to get locked into a discussion I would actually rather not be involved in because I feel an obligation for people to understand me and to understand others once I have contributed.

But it seems to me both sides have explained their viewpoints well enough, agreement is not likely to be reached and now it is just defensive repetition.  

And it is for me distracting from the rest of the conversation...which is not inherently bad, I needed distraction last night after I discovered another off season mouse incursion...not so much today though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Bill Bennett,

Jim Bennett?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is anyone being educated or entertained by this side discussion at this point? I know how easy it is to get locked into a discussion I would actually rather not be involved in because I feel an obligation for people to understand me and to understand others once I have contributed.

But it seems to me both sides have explained their viewpoints well enough, agreement is not likely to be reached and now it is just defensive repetition.  

And it is for me distracting from the rest of the conversation...which is not inherently bad, I needed distraction last night after I discovered another off season mouse incursion...not so much today though.

You’re right Calm.  Time to move on, but it’s hard to see those who were attacking claim they were attacked 

So, never mind Scott (to the need to post links which I really knew didn’t exist 😛.)

Let’s move on and stay on topic!

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, why me said:

True. But people are complicated. Not sure if all will receive such instruction or if the child will be prepared for the teachings of the church. A child is a child and confusion can only be a step away. I never had to think such things as a child. I just played with my GI joe doll and played sports with friends. Simple life in that regard even when the vietnam war was waging. I knew nothing about it. Now...children can't be children.

I think local leaders who are faced with such a situation now shoulder a great burden that they didn’t have before. They must strive mightily to exercise discernment in such instances and to avoid any tendency to rubber stamp such requests. And they must avoid any urge to state or imply, even as an expression of private opinion, that the Church is going to change its doctrines at any time in the future. That would not be kind to those involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You’re right Calm.  Time to move on, but it’s hard to see those who were attacking claim they were attacked 

So, never mind Scott (to the need to post links which I really knew didn’t exist 😛.)

Let’s move on and stay on topic!

I had already moved on. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well then to not be PC I would suggest you educate yourself on the [spectrum of human sexuality from the one side of being very heterosexual to the other end of being very homosexual.  Humans can fall at varying points along this spectrum.  Apparently your niece falls more mid road and acts on it.

Teancum, I don't think any education is necessary, but it is already accepted. There is  a spectrum, but you are asking that we only focus on the two extremes....more precisely, I suspect you are seeking that we only focus on the one homosexual end. Generally, the extremes are just that, the extremes. 

The danger to the Left, to the Gay agenda, is that to admit that sexuality is fluid is to also admit that it is a choice who their partner is. If a choice, then an admission that we can choose to follow Christ and his teachings or not. The erroneous statement, "we are born this way" - which is used to absolve oneself of any responsibility for choice must be abandoned. This is something the Left cannot accept. One's being must never be responsible for one's choice. 

In previous times the choice is significantly more rare - the vast, nigh unanimous choice was hetersexuality. Now, it is whatever catches your attention or piques your interest then do that and you are not at fault. 

I think my niece is like the vast majority of the homosexual community. They have had relationships with both sexes and have chosen which one they want. In the secular world, this does not cause a problem. However, in the spiritual world; in the world that seeks Eternal Life, choice is vital and we must choose from within the parameters the Lord has set and not by the whims of carnal human passions driving us outside the purpose of this life. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True revelations are 100% reliable.  Thinking every confirming feeling mean God agrees with your decision doesn't qualify.

Ahh but the trick is figuring out what is a true revelation. Do you have a fail safe method?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jim Bennett?

Fixed.  My mistake.

Thanks.

Charity, TOm

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Teancum, I don't think any education is necessary, but it is already accepted. There is  a spectrum, but you are asking that we only focus on the two extremes....more precisely, I suspect you are seeking that we only focus on the one homosexual end. Generally, the extremes are just that, the extremes. 

The danger to the Left, to the Gay agenda, is that to admit that sexuality is fluid is to also admit that it is a choice who their partner is. If a choice, then an admission that we can choose to follow Christ and his teachings or not. The erroneous statement, "we are born this way" - which is used to absolve oneself of any responsibility for choice must be abandoned. This is something the Left cannot accept. One's being must never be responsible for one's choice. 

In previous times the choice is significantly more rare - the vast, nigh unanimous choice was hetersexuality. Now, it is whatever catches your attention or piques your interest then do that and you are not at fault. 

I think my niece is like the vast majority of the homosexual community. They have had relationships with both sexes and have chosen which one they want. In the secular world, this does not cause a problem. However, in the spiritual world; in the world that seeks Eternal Life, choice is vital and we must choose from within the parameters the Lord has set and not by the whims of carnal human passions driving us outside the purpose of this life. 

Ok. I understand your points. I don't agree. And the spiritual world is well, pretty ambiguous and subject to a lot of speculation, feelings, etc as well as flip flopping, as this thread shows.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, rockpond said:

It has absolutely been about doctrine.  Three days ago, church members were still under the impression that the revealed will of God was that gay couples were guilty of apostasy and their children could not participate in saving ordinances.  Two days ago that teaching changed.  If the revealed will of God isn't doctrine, I don't know what is.

Also, nobody is forcing you to visit threads that relate to homosexuality and the church. 

I just want to tell you a absolutely love your sig line!  Brilliant!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ahh but the trick is figuring out what is a true revelation. Do you have a fail safe method?

I have one: Aquire as much data as possible, then have a supercomputer analyze the data for trends. "Prophesy" the trend results and voila, a prophet is born. The trends that don't materialize were obviously from man ....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

It tells me that some people may be clued out on revelation in general, but also on how revelation is reliable and the way to test the reliability in particular.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey Wade!  I have missed you!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

One danger to the Left, to the Gay agenda, is that to admit that sexuality is fluid is to also admit that it is a choice who their partner is

One does not automatically follow from the other any more than the fact that there is fluidity in a person's nutritional needs over time means those needs are a choice.

My opinion...lots more research needs to be done.

However, even if there is no choice on attraction, there is always choice on how to express that attraction.  Definitely not easy choices for many if they are attempting to live the Gospel, which is something that needs to be recognized no matter who the individual is.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

:D 

There was a great apostasy.  There's been a restoration.  There will come a great tribulation, and it will be very unpleasant before the Lord returns in power.  The Gospel will fill the earth after the Second Coming, not before.  Not sure what you're trying to say.

People have been saying Jesus is coming for a long, long time.  I won't hold my breath. Even Elder Packer said its still a long way off.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

People have been saying Jesus is coming for a long, long time

Even Jesus "expected an apocalyptic climax to the history of the world within his generation."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Even Jesus "expected an apocalyptic climax to the history of the world within his generation."

Polite CFR please. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Polite CFR please. 

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

By Bart Ehrman.

You can use the "look inside" function and search by the word "generation" . Go to page 18-19 to see the full text but here is the relevant part by Ehrman.

Quote

Jesus, the teacher and prophet from Galilee, predicted that the God of Israel was about to perform a mighty act of destruction and salvation for his people. And he thought that some of those listening to him would be alive when it happened.....

How can we possibly show that Jesus himself really taught such things? That he himself expected an apocalyptic climax to the history of the world within his generation?

In fact, as strange as this may seem to the general reader, this is a view of Jesus that has been maintained for most the present century by the majority of critical scholars in both the United States and Germany--two of the bastions of biblical scholarship in the modern period.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Find attached Part One of the John Dehlin interview with numerous people about the reversal of the November 2015 policy. 

The conversation about how the Church exploits various aspects of prophetic narrative to profess "victory" no matter what happens is relatively early in the show. If you want to watch the entire podcast,  better brew up a pot of Mormon coffee and settle down in a comfy place. This is a long one. 

 

I'm not going to watch it, but I see what you're saying.

The same case can be made in respect of Bible prophecies.  They always win, those ancient prophets, and for the exact same excuse you say is being use here and now.

The fate of the world is proceeding exactly as Heavenly Father has seen it.  He is not being surprised by any of it.  Victory is assured, regardless of what happens in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...