Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Zoidberg]

I don't see a problem with what Elder Oaks taught in the release. There are some things a close relative of mine does which I choose not to do. I love this person, and my view of this person is not affected by their choices in a negative way.

There were certain ideas he expressed (such as not inluding the son's partner as fully into family activities as they would a daughter-in-law, or not letting them spend the night over) that would lead the son to choose between loyalty to his family or his partner (either ultimately or over and over again in small matters, which eventually leads to complete exhaustion). This would probably lead to alienation between the family and their son.

In Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life he talks about a group of people who make it to the tree, partake, and then notice there are some folks mocking them. They become ashamed and leave the tree, wandering in strange roads. I suggest checking out 1 Nephi 8, read it through, and then check out Alma 32. Read and pray about what's troubling you.

Keep in mind that there are times in our religious life that we'll encounter "mists of darkness," and it seems you may be encountering one over this particular issue. This is a time to cling close to the Lord and seek to know His will. Remember that you won't always agree with the counsel of our prophets. I have to admit if I always immediately and unequivocally agreed with every pronouncement in the Church then I'd start to think something was wrong. I'd start to think I am essentially following my own desires, beliefs, values, etc.

Thank you for the insight, LifeOnaPlate. It just seems that the more recent statements by the prophets were that the membership is better off to "align themselves" with a position the FP has taken. Since we are led by living prophets, I would be going against both the position and prophetic counsel. So the only reason for me to stay in the Church would be the hope that either I will someday be able to change my position or the Church will. What do I do in the meantime? I can't be as good a member as I hoped for. I would be picking and choosing what to believe and what to dismiss as a bunch of old men prescribing their personal opinions as doctrine.

hammer, if you were talking to me about politicians, I am perplexed about how you got the impression that I was contemplating leaving the Church over politicians. I don't even have a problem with the Church's political involvement per se (like if they urged us to go protest the war in Iraq, I would be happy to go do that; in fact, I don't know why I haven't actually done that, too lazy, I guess , since it is not only immoral, IMHO, but was started on insufficient grounds and against the UN regulations). If I didn't realize that the FP feels that people who accept their position will be more blessed than those who don't, I could overlook that letter and be content to think it was a bunch of personal opinions, and God will eventually reveal the wrongness of that position to the next prophet. However, the more I learn about what constitutes doctrine and how some people's revelations are superior to others', the more I think I will not be able to have the Church's view for my view, even though that's what I've always wanted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a prime example of what I just posted. Mormons believing a lie without question because it comes from a 'supposed' prophet of God. If he is lying is he still a prophet? No, he wouldn't be. So let's see what the true history is on this.

"WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it-I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong." Journal of Discourses (Jod) 6:32

I guess JFS lied to someone about something because I can't imagine him not knowing about all of these.

I'll give a few more on a post without anyone's post quoted.

Yikes, I'd recommend reading the whole discourse, rather than the one quote. It's already a misquote, as you start it out in the middle of a sentence. It does not begin with "WAKE UP..."

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-4.html

[urroner]

There were certain ideas he expressed (such as not inluding the son's partner as fully into family activities as they would a daughter-in-law, or not letting them spend the night over) that would lead the son to choose between loyalty to his family or his partner (either ultimately or over and over again in small matters, which eventually leads to complete exhaustion). This would probably lead to alienation between the family and their son.

So it's okay for a son to force his family to choose between him and his male partner and their standards, but it's bad for his family to make him choose between his partner and his family. Is this what you are saying?

[e=mc2]

You wanna see blind obedience in action, you should have watched Christian Amanpour's magnificent series called "God's Warriors" about the Fundaentalist aspects of Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity, and their involvment with politics. Spooky! It was also very informative and interesting, but downright SPOOKY how brainwashed folks can get when an ideology is proclaimed all out of proportion to realisticness, whatever that is.......

[rocmonkey]

"Brother Brigham is my leader: he is my Prophet, my Seer, and my Revelator; and whatever he says, that is for me to do; and it is not for me to question him one word, nor to question God a minute. Do you not see?"

"you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel. Well, these things are all right. You learn to do as you are told." Both of these (and the one on the other post) quotes are in the Jod, 6:33. All three quotes were given by "Brother Heber" Would that be the man who would become prophet- Heber C. Kimball? Yep.

"The Lord Almighty leads this church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth." Brigham Young- Jod 9:289

Well, did God sweep BY off the earth? If JFS is not lying he should have. If JFS is lying then God should have swept him off the earth. One thing is very clear, one of these men (both presumed Prophets!) is a liar and the LDS god, if he ever existed, should have 'swept' one of them off the earth when they made their false statement. Since he didn't one must ask, is there an LDS god at all? If so, why didn't he sweep someone? If there isn't, then Mormonism makes sense. You see, it changes when men die out and new ones take over and when cultures change and when events arise that go against older teachings and doctrines- its all man-made!

The blind leading the blind always end up with these kinds of impossible contradictions- and this is just one of dozens, if not hundreds of major contradictions in LDS doctrine. It shows Mormons blindly following because non-Mormons found these and showed them to Mormons- who had no idea they even existed.

[Zakuska]

Well that certianly lets the wind out of his sails...

" In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren, WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it-I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong. You will get water, if you dig away. That is rather presumptuous doctrine with some people; but with me it is not."

[Maidservant]

I have had experiences both where

* I was asked to do something by a bishop; I worried about it or it was a new consideration for me; but I knew that I would be blessed by doing it and come to an understanding by obeying; (and yes I'm talking about a bishop, not even a prophet or anything)

*I was told or asked to to things or given counsel by my bishop and even my Relief Society President that I knew was not right; I knew I already had direction from the Lord; and I continued in that course and did not follow that counsel.

What is the difference? Well, that is the very thing I ask myself. In fact, once I had sought the will of the Lord as to how to balance my work and my children and my education, made more difficult by the fact that I was the only one doing these things -- my husband was not. I felt I was trusting the Lord with my decision and that I had even so far had a revelation. I proceeded with my course. At this time, there was occasion for the bishop to counsel with me and he told me that I should work full time and he said it in a way that made me feel that he thought I had made the decision I had based on selfish desires. Now, I was adult enough to not be devastated by this, but it was a difficult moment. I even told the bishop, I have prayed and felt like I had the Lord's answer. The bishop told me to pray again, which is exactly the thought that I had also. Because I wanted to ask the Lord if he and his bishop could ever disagree! ha ha So I went and prayed again and I told the Lord that I intended to follow the original course that He and I had worked out and if He wanted me to change and follow the bishop, I was open to that, but I needed that direction. I felt that I was fine with what I was already doing. So -- did I screw up? Did I do it exactly right? Probably neither. I'm a human being -- one that is doing my best to access higher counsel. Now what I do know for sure is that my bishop loved me. He was wrong (as far as I could see) but, as a spiritual adult, I was completely aware that he was doing his best; and since I could grant that he was doing his best in a difficult job that I would never want to have, I was not harmed by this experience, rather had a chance to grow and communicate more closely with my Heavenly Father. I also once had my mother-in-law, when she was the Relief Society President, invoke her position in some advice she wished to give me which I knew that she lacked any understanding whatsoever of my circumstances and was speaking and feeling from her own struggles with me and with my marriage with her son -- and I could grant her that! I could grant that she was doing her best to be herself, be a mother- in-law, be a mother, and be the R.S. president. It did hurt, but I knew that I could talk to my Heavenly Father about the whole thing, ins and outs -- I was not dependent on any 'blind' following whatsoever.

On the other hand, I have been where a stake president told us that no one was allowed to wear shorts -- the spectators -- to church baseball games. I thought this quite odd (I can't remember at this point whether an explanation was given; I think I can understand a little why), but I chose to follow this counsel. Even if he was 'wrong', this particular item would have no effect in my life other than to give me the blessings of obeying counsel. There was nothing more to gain from insisting on wearing shorts, IMO. (Might have been different for someone else.) I could waste a lot of time on the ins and outs of short wearing, or I could simply obey and feel peace that I was helping my leader with something he was trying to accomplish.

Following the prophet is a little bit different for me -- if I can't trust that, then why be a Mormon? Might as well not be. However, I am perfectly aware of the nuances of doctrine -- what is central, what is optional, what is gospel, what is cultural tradition; or in those things of which I am not perfectly aware, I am always glad to have my beliefs challenged and have an opportunity to rethink them.

Also, I have some deep reservations about the theory of evolution (to just use one example). I used to think that believing a certain way about the theory of evolution is part of my religion. I have found out for myself that it is not. However, elements of information from both in the scriptures and prophets as well as more so-called secular information (I don't separate it in my mind) have caused me to reject theory of e on the whole. However, I acknowledge an experience of spirit that I had -- I felt the spirit as I looked upon a chart of natural history showing the eons as we've named them presently. Knowledge in the area of the origin of man -- any source -- excites me, and I trust that we are all doing our best and more and more will be discovered and/ or revealed one way or another (in response to our seeking, whether we call it science or religion). So my point is not about theory of e, it is about the fact that I acknowledge that I have received the spirit on something I don't fully understand and I keep that in mind whenever I am learning -- even though what I am learning seems to take me in a completely other direction. I trust that I will be able to choose when necessary, or find reconciliation ultimately -- in any thing in life I am trying to figure out. I am glad to hear counsel from leaders on things I am trying to figure out. I'm glad to be able to personally approach God. I'm glad to learn from different people. It all works together for me. It's not one or the other.

[rocmonkey]

Yikes, I'd recommend reading the whole discourse, rather than the one quote. It's already a misquote, as you start it out in the middle of a sentence. It does not begin with "WAKE UP..."

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-4.html

Actually, The paragraph starts out like this--

"In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethen, wake up! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, etc.

I didn't think that part was a need because it didn't address the issue- doing what you're told- Mormons blindly following what their leaders tell them.

I couldn't find that on the page you quoted. Did you get the right page/quote?

Btw, I seldom quote LDS doctrines/teachings or leaders that I don't have the book, page and verse sitting next to me. I own volumes of LDS books or I have copies of them that I personally made. I know what I'm saying.

[Church Mouse]

When was the last time anyone here observed a negative vote to the raising of the right hand? (Put differently, how many have ever seen that?)

Twice. The first time, I was a teenager and the sole dissenting vote was a female. The Bishop at the stand making the announcements said, "So noted. Please meet me after the meeting to discuss your concerns." The scuttlebutt was that the nominee for the position was having an affair... with the woman who objected. Both disappeared somewhere for a while. The rumor could have been just that.

The second time, I was raising two children. A husband and wife together raised their hands to object to the appointment of a bishop. They refused to discuss their concerns publicly with anyone else beyond a general statement that they had "differences" with the bishop. Privately, I was already aware of some sour business dealings between this fellow and the proposed bishop that he and I had discussed beforehand.

Public-only voting systems tend to be corrupt (as in, not an accurate representation of the will of the people). Votes are bought and traded. In the US Congress, this is overt and some think it is a good thing because voters know how their representatives voted. In the forum of LDS congregations, the currency is in managing relationships with your fellow church-goers and one's reputation in the community.

To their credit, I watched local LDS leaders try to stop this sheep-like mentality in their congregations. At one point during the announcements, the First Councilor asked for an "all in favor" vote on appointing a husband-and-wife couple to some outrageous post (I forgot exactly what it was)... and most of the hands went up. Only two hands went up for "all opposed". This segued into an object lesson by that councilor for his talk that day.

I think it's general human apathy more than blind obedience. If there is not a pressing need to fight the will of the herd, why stand out for the wolves to take down?

[rocmonkey]

Well that certianly lets the wind out of his sails...

" In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren, WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it-I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong. You will get water, if you dig away. That is rather presumptuous doctrine with some people; but with me it is not."

Sure does. This part says nothing and has no effect on the rest. The rest says to do what you're told to do. "Blindly" follow our words, whether right or wrong. I also quoted this part for him/her.

[Doctor Steuss]

This is a prime example of what I just posted. Mormons believing a lie without question because it comes from a 'supposed' prophet of God. If he is lying is he still a prophet? No, he wouldn't be. So let's see what the true history is on this.

"WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it-I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong." Journal of Discourses (Jod) 6:32

I guess JFS lied to someone about something because I can't imagine him not knowing about all of these.

I'll give a few more on a post without anyone's post quoted.

When you learn to read, I'll be willing to dialogue with you (thus far, I have seen nothing beyond your preconceived anti-Mormon drivel and inability to have an original thought). Until that time, I have helped by bolding a pertinent portion of the quote.

Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil

Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, The paragraph starts out like this--

"In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethen, wake up! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, etc.

I didn't think that part was a need because it didn't address the issue- doing what you're told- Mormons blindly following what their leaders tell them.

I couldn't find that on the page you quoted. Did you get the right page/quote?

You have removed context from the quote by your own admission. Some people who engage in this behavior actually realize their fault in doing so, but apparently you see nothing wrong with it.

This method you employ is called "quote mining." Guess who knew you'd do it? Brigham Young, the Prophet:

"In my conversation, I shall talk and act as I please. Still I am always aware, when speaking in public, that there are those present who are disposed to find fault with this people, and to try to raise a prejudice against them; and they will pick up isolated words and sentences, and put them together to suit themselves, and send forth a garbled version to prejudice the world against us. Such a course I never care anything about; for I have frequently said, spoken words are but wind, and when they are spoken are gone; consequently I take liberties in speaking which I do not allow when I commit my sentiments to writing." (Journal of discourses 2:179)

Now you may ask what the difference is in us using quotes herein and your quotes. The difference, my friend, is context.

[Zakuska]

Sure does. This part says nothing and has no effect on the rest. The rest says to do what you're told to do. "Blindly" follow our words, whether right or wrong. I also quoted this part for him/her.

Has nothing to do with it?

It has everything to do with it... It narrows the scope to "Our current situation".

Similarly Paul says the same thing going against Christ's earlier teaching on Marriage.

1 Cor 26

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

[LifeOnaPlate]

rocmonkey quoted:

"The Lord Almighty leads this church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth." Brigham Young- Jod 9:289

This seems to imply leaders can lead people astray.

[Zakuska]

Lets take a chunck of that discourse for context:

Apparently... Apostles have SuperMan vision?!

In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren, WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it-I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong. You will get water, if you dig away. That is rather presumptuous doctrine with some people; but with me it is not.

I have heard men teach in this stand that I was under no obligation to do anything, except I had a revelation. I do not believe the doctrine at all. I don't care who preached it. I am not the leader-I am not the Prophet, nor the chief Apostle. I do not hold the keys independently. I have no keys, only what I hold in brother Brigham; and then brother Brigham has the word of God: he must do thus and so. He comes to me and says, "Brother Heber, I want you to do thus and so." Wait till I go home, get into my private room, and ask God that I may get a revelation! Aint that pretty, brother Taylor? Well, I will not talk just as I think. If I did, I would knock this pulpit head over heels, when I think of such folly. Go and get a revelation, when God has spoken through my head!-and then the tail goes off, and gets down on his knees to get a revelation, when the head has got one!

Now, I have heard that doctrine preached here, that they must have a revelation before they are bound to receive that word and go and practise it, just as it would have been with those men I employed to go and dig that well by the arsenal. "Wait, sir." I will not wait a minute. Go along, or I will employ men that will do it. "I am going to get a revelation to know if there is water there." They do not know that by believing on any man's testimony they increase in knowledge, wisdom, and the power of God. They forget that. Do you not see that I can learn more to be led than I can to lead, if I have the right man to lead me? Brother Brigham is my leader: he is my Prophet, my Seer, and my Revelator; and whatever he says, that is for me to do; and it is not for me to question him one word, nor to question God a minute. Do you not see?

I will tell you what it is right for me to do. If there is time, (and if there is not, it is not necessary,) go along and bow down before the Lord God. Say I, "Father, help me to be faithful and do the words of brother Brigham, my leader, that I may see glory in it, and that I may see immortality and eternal lives in it."

I am teaching you, Elders. Now, if I am not right, I am wrong. I leave it to you to judge whether I am right or wrong. It is curious for me to talk, but it is not for me to question his words any more than it was Naaman, the Assyrian. Said he, "What better are the waters of Jordan? Why are not the rivers of Damascus and the water round Jerusalem just as good? Why is there not as much virtue in them as there is in Jordan? Why, there is; but the virtue is in the man of God telling him what to do. There was virtue in doing what the servant of God told him to do. If he had told him to have gone and got into a mud hole, it would have had the same effect as that water. It is in the words of the man of God, and God lets his angels go along wherever he goes, and the angel of God goes along and touches the man with the touch of his finger, and says, "Be thou made whole!" Why? "Because the servant of God says so, and I have come here to help to fulfil it." Either side of the vail they are active to see that your words are fulfilled. If they are not, they are not with us, nor we with them.

What difference does the vail make? None at all. To us there is a vail, but to them there is no vail. They can see through the side of a house as well as through the air. I know that by experience. "Well, now," some one says, "What good does it do for two or three thousand men to be in the mountains? Why, I don't know that it is any of our business. It says, "Uncle Sam cannot come. We are ready; we are on the spot." Well, what else? It gives those men an experience that they cannot have on any other principle. They are getting an experience-for what? To cultivate them for something greater, which will come next year; and if it does not come then, it will come some time. I do not say it will come next year. You never heard me say it would; but you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel.

I wonder if President Young ever used his X-Ray vision to peek in on Mrs. Kimball's dressing room.

Im sorry but I disagree with Heber C. Kimball.

I also notice that it has nothing to do with "killing people" Etc. he's speaking to some people who apparently where being lazy and didn't want to dig a well.

[Zoidberg]

So it's okay for a son to force his family to choose between him and his male partner and their standards, but it's bad for his family to make him choose between his partner and his family. Is this what you are saying?

Not unless their standards include not wanting to associate with someone on the basis of their sexual orientation (in which case I don't see why they would even want anything to do with their son). What kind of an example of brotherly love would they be setting? Suppose this male partner thinks mormons tend to be bigots. When he sees the family of his boyfriend wants nothing to do with him whatsoever or grudginly endures his short visits despite his openness to a relationship with them, do you think he's going to change his mind or will his conviction that mormons tend to be bigots become even stronger? On the other hand, if he is shown love and acceptance, he is likely to correct someone who mentions something negative about mormons in a conversation and change his own outlook on what mormons are like.

I'm not saying that they should themselves become gay or stop going to Church, or always sacrifice Church activities for activities with their son and his gay partner. They can still believe it is immoral, but they don't have to constantly rub it in their son's face. I, for one, believe that breast augmentation is immoral and would never do it (although I might consider a lift sometime down the road when I'm past my twenties, hehe...), but if my friend wants to go get it, I won't try to prevent her or explain to her why I think it's repugnant.

I have yet to understand how gay people as a whole are hurting society in any way. If you believe your gay son is hurting you, stop talking to him. That would at least be consistent. If you don't believe he's hurting you, don't hurt him by offering this half-love.

[skenderbeg]

I remember my Bishop quoting a member of the 70 and said that, "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!"

I took that to mean, it doesn't matter what I think about things. It doesn't matter that something seems so egregiously wrong, don't question it. Don't even THINK about objecting to it.

That is not a quote from a member of the 70 - it came from a church publication as a 'home teachers message' many, many, many years ago. Once the message was brought to the attention of the President of the church, it was quickly repudiated as not being canonical, and actually going against the church viewpoint of every person gaining a personal testimony.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It's wrong about this Mormon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lets take a chunck of that discourse for context:

Apparently... Apostles have SuperMan vision?!

I wonder if President Young ever used his X-Ray vision to peek in on Mrs. Kimball's dressing room.

Im sorry but I disagree with Heber C. Kimball.

I also notice that it has nothing to do with "killing people" Etc. he's speaking to some people who apparently where being lazy and didn't want to dig a well.

I temper Elder Kimball's statements, as well, on the fact he is addressing pretty temporal issues, and involve in the context the importance of solidarity on the plains at the time. He mentions getting a personal revelation on everything, which we have been told can be dangerous. If we continually ask about trivial things we aren't allowing ourselves to exercise agency in the first place.

[rocmonkey]

I double dog dare you to prove any General Authority ever said that. I can't believe a bishop ever said that.

In other words:

CFR

I did show where the prophet and a soon to be prophet said it.

What does CFR mean?

[selek]

They can still believe it is immoral, but they don't have to constantly rub it in their son's face. I, for one, believe that breast augmentation is immoral and would never do it (although I might consider a lift sometime down the road when I'm past my twenties, hehe...), but if my friend wants to go get it, I won't try to prevent her or explain to her why I think it's repugnant.

This analogy is far more prescient than you might beleive Zoid. In both cases, homosexual conduct and breast augmentation, there are hidden costs both physical and mental, and extremely serious health repercussions that are generally glossed over in pursuit of acceptance and/or sanction.

If I beleive premarital sex is wrong, I don't provide my son condoms or allow his girlfriend to share the bed with him under my roof. That, frankly, is both mixed signals and tacit support. It's hypocrisy, and it's enabling destructive and immoral behavior.

If you love an alcoholic, you don't encourage him to belly up to the bar every night, or socialize with him down at the local wattering hole- you help him put the bottle down. You don't enable the behavior- you enable the recovery.

For all the spin of modern day Babylon, looking the other way or ignoring the problem with a wink and a nervous giggle isn't an example of Christian charity. It's ignoring the idols in our midst.

I have yet to understand how gay people as a whole are hurting society in any way.

That's a subject for another thread. As a beleiver, how do you feel about the historic/scriptural examples of a people fully ripened in iniquity?

If you believe your gay son is hurting you, stop talking to him. That would at least be consistent. If you don't believe he's hurting you, don't hurt him by offering this half-love.

Actually, the problem is that he's hurting himself. He's engaged in behavior that has been proven to be extremely self-destructive in this life and will be equally damning in the next. As un-PC as the great and spacious building may find it, the Savior counseled us to leave the ninety and nine and bring home the lost sheep.

A blind eye and a politically-sophisticated "boys will be boys" isn't doing a service to a wayward son. It's abandoning him to the wolves.

I agree with you that "ritual shunning" and the like are extreme reactions- but a feigned indifference, polite public faces, and a tepid tolerance are the perfect cocktail for spiritual poison.

[selek]

I did show where the prophet and a soon to be prophet said it.

What does CFR mean?

It means Call For References. You are now expected to cite documentable evidence in support of your claim.

This usually takes the form of a book title, chapter, and page number- or some other verifiable instance where we can look at your evidence.

If you cannot provide such evidence, you are expected to retract the claim.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I did show where the prophet and a soon to be prophet said it.

What does CFR mean?

Morningstar asked Selah, not you, for a CFR.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did show where the prophet and a soon to be prophet said it.

What does CFR mean?

Im sorry you provided no such quote from a prophet. You had attempted to so such with an out of context quote.

[rocmonkey]

Twice. The first time, I was a teenager and the sole dissenting vote was a female. The Bishop at the stand making the announcements said, "So noted. Please meet me after the meeting to discuss your concerns." The scuttlebutt was that the nominee for the position was having an affair... with the woman who objected. Both disappeared somewhere for a while. The rumor could have been just that.

The second time, I was raising two children. A husband and wife together raised their hands to object to the appointment of a bishop. They refused to discuss their concerns publicly with anyone else beyond a general statement that they had "differences" with the bishop. Privately, I was already aware of some sour business dealings between this fellow and the proposed bishop that he and I had discussed beforehand.

Public-only voting systems tend to be corrupt (as in, not an accurate representation of the will of the people). Votes are bought and traded. In the US Congress, this is overt and some think it is a good thing because voters know how their representatives voted. In the forum of LDS congregations, the currency is in managing relationships with your fellow church-goers and one's reputation in the community.

To their credit, I watched local LDS leaders try to stop this sheep-like mentality in their congregations. At one point during the announcements, the First Councilor asked for an "all in favor" vote on appointing a husband-and-wife couple to some outrageous post (I forgot exactly what it was)... and most of the hands went up. Only two hands went up for "all opposed". This segued into an object lesson by that councilor for his talk that day.

I think it's general human apathy more than blind obedience. If there is not a pressing need to fight the will of the herd, why stand out for the wolves to take down?

Didn't someone not sustain an 'authority' in 1978 and get fired for it? He was like the grounds keeper for the Temple in SLC or something. I always thought you were free to vote any way you like without fear of retribution- I guess not if the church is your employer, huh? Any one remember that one?