Jump to content

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Posts

    7,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,499 profile views

HappyJackWagon's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

7.8k

Reputation

  1. But do you view the resistance to the doctrine increasing? If so, why is resistance increasing? Or has it always been the way you see it and you just happen to be commenting on it now? Personally, I don't think there would have been a significant resistance to the idea of becoming like God (in every way) 10-20-30 years ago. I view the change as reflective of leadership, or at least the PR arm of the church.
  2. Perhaps members hedge because they've seen the church hedge in it's Gospel Topics Essay- Becoming like God. The topic surely isn't taught the same way it once was which leads to a lack of confidence.
  3. I've seen a couple of facebook friends cite this continuation of an existing meeting as evidence that revelation is alive and well in the church That seems a very low threshold for defining revelation. Cancelling and then deciding to continue a conference session within the span of a couple of weeks is a little funny. I mean...really. In and of itself it's really not a big deal. I think the world would continue to revolve just fine whether or not this conference session continued. But does it concern anyone that changes (significant or not) seem to be made with such limited study and prayer that it needs to be reversed within 2 weeks? Surely God didn't change his mind during that span, which means that leadership was solely responsible for the change that was then reversed. I'm seriously surprised because I thought the brethren were more deliberate in their actions than this. But it does make one wonder what else the brethren decide and implement without adequate study and prayer; The November policy, perhaps.
  4. I can't take this seriously. Elder Oaks suggested/taught that it would be appropriate to tell a SS couple loved one not to even come visit for the holiday. There is no expression of love in telling someone not to come visit for the holiday. The excuse that it would be endorsing a lifestyle would be comical if it wasn't so offensive. I wonder if that father or mother has any other children who have 'sinned" in some other way. I wonder if he/she would tell that child not to come visit for Christmas because he didn't want to endorse the sinful lifestyle. It comments like Oaks' and then the justifications by members of comments likes Oaks' that have LGBTQ members and a huge portion of the younger generations running from the church.
  5. It's very convenient to say the law doesn't apply to Mormons because the prophet says God believes something different. The church can make any claim it chooses but that doesn't mean I have to accept it's new definition of 'fornication". When a couple is legally married, it is not fornication. The church accepts legal marriage. The church believes in being subject to the laws of the land. Are you really suggesting the law doesn't apply when the church doesn't want it to?
  6. I would need someone to explain to me with a straight face how those aren't very harsh comments. (and that is my kind and generous way of saying it)
  7. Honestly, it surprises me a bit that growing pot as a farmer is acceptable, but cool. We can go with the flow.
  8. Possibly. It could also indicate a vast political prohibition movement that was becoming popular which Elder Grant wanted to align with in an effort to be viewed as more acceptable to his protestant counterparts. IIRC there was also history of alcohol abuse in Grant's family growing up so I would imagine that would impact his views on the topic. I've never seen that but accept your claim. Have you ever heard of a dispensary owner holding leadership callings? I think there is usually a difference in viewing farmers versus retail sales and ownership. Kind of like the farmers who grow barley and sell to Coors being on a different level than someone owns and operates a bar
  9. Since he was speaking at an official church event as an official church representative I would think that his harsh comments could be taken as official church direction.
  10. I would suppose not, but I don't have any particular knowledge about that. Whilst the prohibition movement was happening, there was also a strong anti-tobacco political action happening. But I don't know if there was anything else happening in the saloons that wasn't also happening in the SLC brothels.
  11. From that article- page 79 So, even if no one agrees with Fair Dinkum in 2021, it appears the First Presidency and Q12 from 1902 would have agreed with him by refusing to fellowship anyone who operated (profited) from saloons (liquor sales) even though sacramental wine was used generally through 1906 and even longer among the brethren in their temple sacrament participation.
  12. Surprised me too. At the very least it would be very frowned upon as a weakness or vice and a person might be used as a negative example if they were seen drinking.
  13. Limiting the way someone is allowed to serve IS substantive IMO. What else could a priesthood leader do? Restrict the sacrament or participation in other ordinances like ordaining a son to the priesthood or setting apart a wife for a calling etc. You may not think those are a big deal but I would disagree. And I still believe that a temple recommend could very well be in danger as well.
  14. So it's not a sin for the non-member but they would have to repent of that non-sin before becoming a member? Can you cite a reference for when and where a covenant is made to keep the WoW? Wait...what? When and how did the church enter a covenant? CFR on that one. Also, Brigham continued drinking as did the general membership of the church until Heber J Grant who was a teetotaler. There were rules against public drunkenness for entering the temple but also exceptions for that. So even though BY declared it a commandment there was no abstinence requirement during the BY era. This is an interesting paper about the development of the WOW historically. An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom (byu.edu) Page 90 starts the Heber J Grant section which is really interesting IMO. BUT... this article from Dialogue is outstanding. The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, by Thomas Alexander THE WORD OF WISDOM: FROM PRINCIPLE TO REQUIREMENT on JSTOR It's a much shorter read.
  15. Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender At (churchofjesuschrist.org) Oaks took it even further than I remembered- he suggested that if kids are in the home the SS couple shouldn't even visit for the holidays or "deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your partnership." Ouch. Very loving indeed. One might also ask, at what point does selling alcohol cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior the church opposes? I think this is the crux of Fair Dinkum's question.
×
×
  • Create New...