Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jeff K.

Contributor
  • Posts

    4,639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jeff K.

  1. A reformist Mormon? Isn't that like the reformist protestant churches? ie the breakaway sects?

    There were other reformists movements, the Strangites for example, and of course the "Reorganized" Church later to be called something else. Yes, those churches were chock full of reformist Mormons.

    Or are reformists those who claim to know better than the prophet the direction in which the church is heading? There will always be reformists in the Church, even in the Church of Jesus Christ. I will bet when Christ comes to reign, there will still be reformists. ;)

  2. Jeff I agree with you.

    But I would also add that there is also a question of love. So, I would add this ...

    a) If we love the lord we keep his commandments. If we love him, do we show that by keeping the commandments?

    or

    b) If we keep the commandments, we love the Lord. Do we just do them, BECAUSE we love him without a thought of which number we are keeping?

    One of the above implies true understanding of the commandments, the other does not.

    I agree, that is the much deeper and more pure truth in the matter

  3. Holy Crap, Jeff!

    Here's what you need to do. Take yourself where you now stand. Now rotate 180 degrees, THERE, yes, right there, that's the topic of discussion.

    Senator isn't quite there yet. The response was to a declaration that Mormons are an exclusive hetero club by Toronto. Showing that rules apply, and that berating the commandments or God's laws is merely a reflection or projection that one believes such rules (ie commandments hold no value).

    So the response was within the parameters of the discussion.

    I appreciate the "Holy Crap" comment, like Robin in the 60's kitch comedy, you are clueless and often in need of help in order to extricate yourself when you speak of things you do not understand. So Robin, I give you my batterang of understanding and hope you don't hurt yourself with it. ;)

  4. You are great at changing context. It is you who are projecting that God has a private club with certain rules. In fact there are rules to follow, in fact you won't see some people in the presence of the Lord (creating some exclusivity). You may consider that elitist when in fact it is merely truth that those rules (like not playing on the edge of a balcony) exist for our own benefit. The "rules", which you have misinterpreted, are beneficial to us in both this life and the next one. I am sure when you see God you will have a mouthful for Him about His "rules". You will tell him that you want no part of His elitist "private club", you will I am sure berate God for his lack of sympathy for others (forgetting the Atonement), and you will imply that He really isn't much better than Satan. It is what you do and imply here.

    The difference of course is that as much as you may want to, you won't be able to uses anyone else's identity. You will be left to your own devices.

    Of course after that, Christ will reveal you to yourself.... after that the only thing left will be the self pity.

  5. No, but if I were the Lord, I'd welcome anyone regardless of their habits, lifestyle, and behaviour. And if you search lds.org, you'll find there are prophets and apostles who agree.

    H.

    The Lord has a great deal more integrity and honesty. We are thankful that the Lord is not reflected in Toronto's comments. Perhaps Toronto isn't aware that God does welcome everyone, one must merely accept the atonement which allows us into His presence. He has even provided places for those who have chosen not to accept the Atonement.

  6. Bob Crockett, on 10 April 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

    I am not Muslim. I would never think it appropriate as a human being or a Christian to log in to a Muslim forum anonymously to mock them for their beliefs about homosexuality. Nor would I log onto a gay board and anonymously mock them for not being hetero. Live and let live. With yer own name of course.

    It is indeed a question of honesty and integrity. Something woefully lacking in those who do such a thing. They simply suspend ethics in order to carry out what they want. They are morally questionable peole with little honesty and should be approached in the same way.

  7. My apologies, I presumed Canada wasn't some primitive backwater nation with little or not communication in its organizations. Toronto apparently believes it to be so. I bow to his superior knowledge of the primitive and disorganized nature of Canadians.

    Though I must say there seems to be a correction, two "units" ie wards or branches or auxiliaries have not been audited, not a stake. In other words it remains in the hands of the local stake leadership to audit the wards and branches and it is their decision to do so? Not an entire Stake that has not been audited. Contextual lies are still lies. Given that, how would Toronto know what was sent to the Stake President specifically and what the reply is? Well he wouldn't. So his scenario is doubtful at best. I see no credibility in his statement.

    As for the twice per year requirement, audits only need to happen once per year if I recall. However, the stakes I have been in have always gotten behind for various reasons. SLC sends a notice reminding stakes to catch up. I've been in stakes where wards were not audited for a couple of years.

    ERayr;

    3) Frankly I do not believe you have been in stakes where the financial audits have not been performed for two years. If that were the case SLC would be down on them like stink on a skunk.

    Toronto:

    You don't have to believe it. But here's what happens. First, you get snail mail from SLC, usually a few months after the audit was due. Then, when stake conference rolls around, if a general authority is visiting, he instructs the stake presidency to get a move on. But they don't come down on you like "stink on a skunk". They just keep sending letters.

    Toronto

    And yes, Jeff, I am currently in a stake where a couple of units were not audited for two years. And yes, Jeff, the GA who visited during stake conference asked about it. I was in the room. And no Jeff, we don't have to wait for a GA to visit - we have an AA70 who asks on occasion. But no one has ever been sent to straighten the stake out. And the stake I'm currently in regularly falls behind in audits. But it has nothing to do with being in Canada

    So now its "a couple of units", not a stake, and the context of both my point and ERayR dealt with the stake issue, which would have been shocking. Toronto confuses things, and it has a huge impact on his credibility. Men of integrity rarely revert to confusion in order to win a debate, but when your quiver is empty of anything truly remarkable as far as intellectual counterpoint, what are left to do but conflate Stakes and "units"?

    Remember, some people purposely make honest debate difficult because they forget the first part of the phrase "honest debate". <_<

    .

  8. And this takes two years, in Canada? In a stake? I find that hard to believe. Stakes are important elements to Salt Lake, especially in a place as well developed as Canada. Information travels rapidly, and not just by "snail mail" and they don't wait until a General Authority happens to come by, they send a General Authority.

    What you suggest is not the reality reflected. Granted it may be slower in third world countries where communication and travel is somewhat problematic, but in Canada the issue is remarkably different, like a 51st state. Movement is easy to do, and there are plenty of authorities in Canada to speak to the issue directly and quickly.

  9. Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

    No victim should play the victim card, we should let the ignorant sleights of others that reveal their true feelings to go without acknowledging their bigotry against us. After all, if we even mention such we are tossing out the victim card. When is it allowable I wonder?

    Lets ask Governor Boggs, oh darn there I go again, playing the victim card.

    Are you assuming that I have something against the LDS church? I do not. Because I disagree with some of its positions does not give reason to conclude such.

    I am not assuming you have anything against the church, I am merely pointing out that sometimes people and groups really are victims, and sometimes they are not.

  10. Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

    In fact marriage as an institution has always been religious, the state is the late comer in stating it is within the purview of the government.

    Does this mean you also assume that non-religious practitioners 3500 years ago adhered to a religious practice? I'm not sure I know of a history professor who would agree with such a notion. Atheism is not a new concept that developed somewhere in the last 600 years.

    Which non religious practioners would that be?

  11. Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

    Which petition has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made to the government, (aside from alleviation of persecution in the past, which I presume you do advocate, but now do not advocate or rather you advocate what you find acceptable to you, but then advocate against what is unacceptable and allow the church the same leeway?, chuckle, situational ethics; not just for breakfast anymore)

    I disagree with the gov't forcing the LDS church to stop polygamy in the 19th century. That was a religious practice. Likewise, if a church wants to perform gay marriages because they believe it to be part of their religious practice then the gov't should not threaten disenfranchisement, or confiscation of property, etc. I am sorry for the injustice done against the LDS church prior to the 1890 Manifesto.

    I do not recall the church requiring the government to recognize marriage as official during those times.

    Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

    Any advocacy can be seen as as "force upon others" since one person's advocacy is another's persecution. What you are stating really is that if you are religious then you cannot advocate for moral things. That the church should not stand and speak out against what they see as moral issues. I find that to be not so much a slippery slope as I do the actual accomplishment of having fallen down the hill. "Shut up religious people" it is not your place nor the place of your organization to advocate morality in any sense of the word.

    And it is yours? Or the LDS church's?

    The church has every right to say what it THINKS or TEACHES to be moral but that is only binding on the church and no one else. As I said before, I don't think religious people should shut up but they do need to remember that their morals are theirs alone and are not necessarily relevant to the rest of society.

    It is binding on the church and those who belong to the church. The association is there, and the vast majority of opinion regarding God and the moral parameters are shared by both members and the church. The differences are nuanced at best. So I would say your question is an attempt to separate the people from their God or rather God's representative upon the earth and that simply doesn't work.

    Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

    In no legal world is your definition of advocacy a violation of other peoples rights. Differences of opinion by their definitoin DO NOT mean one side is being persecuted and the other side is not being persecuted. Situational ethics as to what can and cannot be advocated based on what you do or do not like is a good philosophy to follow.

    Then lets make sure a Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't happen.

    It only became an issue when groups chose to 1- curtail the law, and 2- ignore the legislature, and 3- attempt to make it nation wide.

  12. No victim should play the victim card, we should let the ignorant sleights of others that reveal their true feelings to go without acknowledging their bigotry against us. After all, if we even mention such we are tossing out the victim card. When is it allowable I wonder?

    Lets ask Governor Boggs, oh darn there I go again, playing the victim card.

  13. I don't think Mormons should shut up. I do suggest as another has that the church should not petition government to limit the religious practices of other religions because of their own moral standards. As another stated that would be in violation of 2 amendments. What the LDS church considers to be moral is binding only on that institution. Trying to force it on others is a violation of rights. Let me clarify and reiterate...if a church believes in allowing gay marriage then no other church should be petitioning against that churches practices and beliefs. It would be the double standard considering the governments involvement in ending polygamy in Utah.

    Which petition has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made to the government, (aside from alleviation of persecution in the past, which I presume you do advocate, but now do not advocate or rather you advocate what you find acceptable to you, but then advocate against what is unacceptable and allow the church the same leeway?, chuckle, situational ethics; not just for breakfast anymore)

    Any advocacy can be seen as as "force upon others" since one person's advocacy is another's persecution. What you are stating really is that if you are religious then you cannot advocate for moral things. That the church should not stand and speak out against what they see as moral issues. I find that to be not so much a slippery slope as I do the actual accomplishment of having fallen down the hill. "Shut up religious people" it is not your place nor the place of your organization to advocate morality in any sense of the word.

    In no legal world is your definition of advocacy a violation of other peoples rights. Differences of opinion by their definitoin DO NOT mean one side is being persecuted and the other side is not being persecuted. Situational ethics as to what can and cannot be advocated based on what you do or do not like is a good philosophy to follow.

  14. I think our sacrifices to the Lord should be as private as possible. We should not use public disclosure which may lead to ridicule in order to increase what we are obligated to pay on a personal level. Individual salvation and sacrifice is just that individual.

    As a group, when more needs to be done, I think it takes a different tone.

  15. Some people will want to shut Mormons up. Members of the church are not allowed to advocate, congregate or say anything against the prevailing whims of society. How dare Mormons and their leadership advocate for moral principals. How dare they encourage advocacy of the vote to uphold moral laws. They are obviously a blight on society and should be dealt with accordingly. Everyone uses to government to support the laws they believe in, everyone. As such the idea is ridiculous that such a stance held by ALL institution (not just the ones favored by some on this board) are an advocacy for laws which they feel to be both moral and just (who in their right mind that is no evil believes in unjust laws).

    Everyone has their pet projects that they advocate for. The danger is when such projects become so overwhelming that one is willing to damage and even destroy the church in order to keep the advocacy of church membership limited by forcing those members to silence their voices. Would it make sense to tell someone because they or their organization is gay that they cannot and must not advocate for their view on gay marriage? Then why tell those adherents of marriage for morality's sake that they must be forcibly silenced? Such double standards are de rigeur I know, but they should be avoided.

  16. I know of no strict evolutionist who would argue that it is even remotely plausible for life on other planets to evolve which have ten fingers and ten toes, two eyes, a nose, etc just as we do. Though, if you see such an argument being made please point it out. I'd love to see it.

    That is a bit specific, and certainly not what anyone here said. The position you take seems to be somewhat extreme. I suggest you rethink it.

  17. One can certainly argue that some intelligent, anthropomorphic form might have arisen on some small corner in the big, big universe (i.e. us, now). But to try and use that same argument that this very same human form shows up on lots and lots of different worlds is much more problematic.

    It is problematic because we don't have much information (ie none) of the development of life elsewhere. However do we then take the stance that what occurs here cannot occur elsewhere? For those who believe that only natural random causes create are we to assume we weren't the path of least resistance for the development of life?

×
×
  • Create New...