bluebell

I think you are right. Agreeing with everything the church does is different than consecrating our efforts to the kingdom of God.

There’s lots of things that don’t match the ideal though that the church does not label as needing to be discouraged. Adoption doesn’t match the ideal for example. I am uncomfortable with this gray area that this policy creates. Where it is implied to be bad, but not bad enough to tell people not to do it. it seems like it would be better to tell people to proceed with caution and to make sure that they take the decision to the Lord, or something like that.

One thing I don’t understand about the topic is what “discourages” actually means. Surrogacy is obviously not wrong or they would say that, so if it’s not wrong then why discourage him? Is it because they think it could be wrong but they don’t know for sure?

I strongly recommend this whole series on Race and Priesthood because it covers everything, has access to primary sources (including from the church vault) that many historians didn't have before, and though faithful to the church is good at not whitewashing the history and keeping biases to a minimum. It covers the sources and the context, which is essential in any study of historical issues. But here is the specific episode that deals with this point in history. The podcast isn't very long if you do podcasts but there is also a transcript if you want to read it. https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/podcast-episode/1852-and-the-beginnings-of-the-priesthood-temple-ban-in-the-church/

Those people all publicly criticized the church and publicly put forth their views as correct, seeking to convert others to their perspective. Charlie has shared his life publicly but never set himself up as a standard for truth on the subject. The comparison between discussing the morality of his personal choices and the morality of the arguments others have made against the gospel and the church falls apart real fast in my opinion.

In the notes for the 1852 meeting, he also says (in the back and forth between him and Orson Pratt, who adamantly disagreed with him), “I may vary in my views from others, and they may think that I’m foolish in the things that I have spoken and they might think that they know more than I do but I know more than they do.” He clearly believed he was right, but he never invokes the idea of any revelation from God as the source of his rightness. Pratt brought up many times in his arguments that they could not deprive blacks from the rights to the priesthood based on color because God had not directed them to do so, and BY never contradicts him on that. In true BY style he just says "I'm right". I agree that scripturally the arguments against SSM are not well supported.

There’s a difference between discussing doctrine and practices, and discussing whether a specific person is sinning, how they are sinning, and how God feels about their choices. I brought up Charlie’s activity in his ward because it was providing factual information. It was never meant to open up a discussion about his personal standing before God.

Was there a claimed revelation for the priesthood ban? I think Young, from the beginning, referred to it as his personal views, and then eventually there were others who claimed false memories about Joseph Smith saying it was wrong, but I didn’t think any president of the church actually claimed revelation on it? I think you are right though, in that the priesthood ban came from bias and prejudice, and that the prohibition against same-sex marriage could certainly be from a similar place. I think one of the issues that can’t be ignored when trying to compare the two is that from the beginning Brigham Young taught that someday, eventually, Black members would get the priesthood. There’s no equivalent to same-sex marriage in our theological history. That doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, but in a comparison, I think it’s relevant.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions. Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon. You feel a certain way about their choices. 100% valid. Also 100% not fact. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

I gravitate towards a mixture of these two perspectives. I do think that children have some obligation to their parents, and I think that parents obviously have obligations to their children. I think the way those obligations play out (and what they are) change greatly throughout life. From my perspective, I feel like the commandment to honor thy father and mother is a reminder that the relationship is meant to go both ways.

Eh, I’m fine with their process, I think they are doing it tongue in cheek. Maybe they are being more self-focused than they should be but so am I sometimes so I don’t feel like I can really judge them fairly. I agree that children have a right to a father and mother, but I also struggle with how often God is fine with taking a father or mother (or even both) to the detriment of the children. Mortal life seems to be set up to force us to deal with the less ideal. I’m good leaving this situation between them and God

No arguing necessary. They are active according to the metrics the church itself uses, and it was meant to share information and not debate a point.

This isn’t completely accurate. Charlie Bird and his husband are still active in their ward and currently navigating surrogacy or adoption options. I couldn’t find any links that weren’t to his Instagram videos or stuff like that but you can Google it if your curious about it.

You can’t from the opposite side of the chapel. It sits on the floor and back in a little alcove.

My experience was with nonLDS Protestants and the Apostles Creed.

The sacrament table in my stake center is currently on the floor, not elevated at all. It At my old ward, the pulpit is not in the center, it is off to one side of the room. I think that we sometimes forget the variety in our ward buildings and assume they are all set up similarly.

I think you are conflating two different ideas. Different denominations exist (generally) because people disagree about doctrinal or theological issues. Not because they believe (again, in general) that they must be a member of that specific church to be saved. For most Protestants, salvation is not connected to authority or doctrinal accuracy. That’s why a methodist and Baptist might completely disagree about certain doctoral issues, but still consider each other saved.

Prayers for comfort and strength Pyreaux, I’m so sorry.

Love it!

They did another podcast on how Jesus is the Way and then a third on how Jesus is the Light. I need to go and listen to those as well to see how they attempt to take a more literal look at those parts of that famous verse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZB8dkq1V0 "Who is Truth"/ Gospel Chats podcast

That's definitely one way to look at it. If I get the chance I'll link to the podcast. It's short and it's from the latter-day saint perspective but I'm not sharing it in an attempt to argue that it's the correct way to approach the topic. The podcast is quick to point out that that isn't their purpose either. It's just an interesting perspective that we tend to ignore in this day and age where 'truth = accurate' is most common. I just thought you'd be interested in the topic in general but you don't have to listen to the link, no worries.

I heard somebody talking about the concept of truth and the gospel in a podcast and it reminded me of your thread. They made the point that in scripture, truth is not just a what, it is also a Who. Christ says that He is the truth. That’s an interesting angle to think about the concept. And from that angle you end up with the statement “faith that is based on Christ is no longer faith”.

It is so in most cases.

Believing you are correct, and believing that God only accepts your specific church (or your individual congregation) as His true and living church, are two different things.