how to share the gospel

[Pahoran]

The original scenario, recall, was a girl who was about to be baptized and wanted her gay brother and his legally married husband to hear the gospel and be baptized. I asked what the missionaries would do.

Whether something is printed in Preach My Gospel or not is of little consequence. Do the missionaries tell the girl that there is no hope for the gay married couple?

Again: remarkably cunning phraseology, carefully designed to pre-empt discussion of the real issue. If the missionaries said what you suggest, they would be lying to the girl. (Somehow, I don't think you'd disapprove if they lied in the service of your fashionable ideology.) What they truthfully tell her is that her brother and his "other" need to live the same moral standards as everyone else; they don't have different rules because of their "sexual orientation" or something. But in fact they have the same hope as she does: they can be cleansed from their sin if they truly repent and are baptised.

Listen, I've sat in on that Preach My Gospel discussion, and it happens in less than a few minutes, and then moves right along. You can't tell me that suddenly, this girl goes from loving her brother and brother-in-law as family to viewing them as sinners in that short time frame.

And the misrepresentations just keep on coming. The Church is never going to tell her to stop loving her brother; nor do we label people as "Sinnahs!!" to be shunned. I think you have us confused with someone else. As you ought to know, we don't stop loving someone just because they are sinners, because, of course, we are all sinners.

However, in process of time, she may come to realise the fact that her brother's current squeeze is not really "family."

Regards,

Pahoran

[nicolasconnault]

Look, if you feel that sitting in hours of meetings is a meaningful service, then by all means, continue sitting in those meetings feeling good about yourself. If however you want to do something about the human condition, I'd suggest PEC is the last place you should be...

I don't feel good about myself for sitting in meetings. I feel good when I visit with struggling members and investigators and see them make progress, thanks to the planning and decisions that were made in meetings. That's service. Don't make it sound like I choose to sit in meetings instead of doing what you call "doing something about the human condition". If you like to go around like a headless chook (pardon the Australian colloquialism) trying to improve the human condition without a plan or without correct information about what people's needs are, you're welcome to feel good about yourself. Somehow I doubt this is how you perform your service.

You sound like a passive observer. Surely you have been placed in charge of some of these meetings at various times. What have you done to improve them?

Much.

So even the meetings in which you were in charge were useless? Did you keep them useless just to give yourself a reason to complain? It might help your argument to describe what you've done to improve the meetings.

[Calm]

Do the missionaries tell the girl that there is no hope for the gay married couple?

Are you claiming that if asked directly if her brother can stay in his relationship and be baptized in the LDS faith that the missionaries won't plainly state that homosexual relationships must be stopped and repented of prior to baptism?

When it plainly states in the baptism interview and the missionaries know it's going to be said....

You can't tell me that suddenly, this girl goes from loving her brother and brother-in-law as family to viewing them as sinners in that short time frame.

The girl has a right to change her mind or not, the Church clearly teaches the principle of morality for both hetero and homosexual behaviour. States quite clearly that homosexual behaviour is a sin (it also teaches that we should love the sinners and that all men are our family so it's not all one or the other). What the girl does with that teaching is up to her.

add-on: btw, your original comment on this particular issue was limited to this...

that the missionaries won't teach about the church's position on gay marriage

I demonstrated that the missionary lessons do indeed teach the Church's position on gay marriage. It's not that hard to understand:

Baptismal

candidates are to live the law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relations outside of

alegal marriage between a man and a woman. They are not to participate in abortions or

homosexual or lesbian relations. Those who have committed sexual sin can repent and

be forgiven.

[LDSToronto]

If the Ranting fanatical Maniacs (RfM) are to be believed, absolutely everybody who ever left the Church did so because the "found out for themselves" that the Church's truth claims weren't true. This is known as the "herd of independent thinkers." You appear to fit right in.

Never been to the site, posted there, or read anything from it. But if you say so...

Nice two-step. Because I have a testimony of the Restoration, I accept that the Church is 100% correct: there is no such thing as "gay marriage."

Visit Canada. Gay marriage is real. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. That still means something, I think.

So either the apostles and prophets are apostate, or you are.

Or neither of us are apostate. Just share different views on some stuff.

I would trust the brethren far more than I would ever trust you.

Not sure why you keep harping on this. I'm not looking to earn your trust. But for the record, duly noted, you don't trust me.

Not in a position of responsiblity. You occasionally in the pews, or whining during HP group meetings, could do little harm; however, if you were to act upon your alleged "principles," I could see you slyly trying to issue Temple Recommends to people you know to be unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. I'm sorry Toronto, I don't trust you to put the Church's standards ahead of your fashionable preferences.

Pahoran, I don't take my responsibility lightly, and if you'd like, please poke around and find out if any such temple recommends have been issued in the Toronto area. Oh, and while you're at it, ask around and see if any members of stake presidencies are preaching false doctrine, or gay marriage, or other 'fashionable preferences'.

And while I am the last person to want to break down anyone's faith in Christ, the fact is that you are being brazenly inconsistent in your approach. A great many anti-Mormon arguments are just recycled anti-Christian arguments; sometimes even in detail.

You aren't deliberately pointing me towards anti-Christian material or encouraging me to look into the authenticity of Christ's story, are you, Pahoran? Because if you are, that seems like you are preaching false doctrine. Not saying you are, but it's the impression I get...

In your thoroughly apostate opinion. I will thank you to desist from trying to proselyte for it.

I'm not apostate, so you are welcome.

I'm inclined to think that it's not just your Church membership that gives you a particular interest in this particular moral standard.

What are you inclined to think, Pahoran? Don't be coy, just say what you think. I mean, you already think I'm an apostate, how much worse can this be?

Not nearly as much as it obviously bugs you that most Latter-day Saints sustain the leaders of the Church instead of you. As I said, I'm happy for you to remain a member, and I don't mind if you serve in some capacity where you are not responsible for upholding the Church's moral teachings.

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that members don't sustain me? (hint: they do) Or are you saying that it bugs me that I'm not something more? (hint: I'm perfectly happy with my lot in life) Or does it irk you that I can hold these thoughts and remain a credible leader in the church?

But yes, I think a disciplinary council might be appropriate if you don't stop trying to proselyte Latter-day Saints to your apostate views.

I've shared my views here, but I haven't told anyone else they need to believe them...

But I'll tell you what, Toronto: if you think my reaction to your activities here is inappropriate, I'll gladly give my Stake President a transcript of our discussions, and let him hold a Disciplinary Council to see whether my challenging of your views has overstepped any marks. I will give you his contact details so that you can follow up with him, if you like.

And you can do the same.

Agreed?

I don't think your reaction here is inappropriate. In fact, I wouldn't expect anything less. I don't think you need a disciplinary council, but then again, I never claimed you'd need one.

Oh, and my stake president says I don't need one either.

How generous of you. But tell me: who in the Church would you label as "a man of God?" Particularly among those who uphold the Church's moral teachings?

Well, there is a former Toronto temple president who I really admire. And my wife is a sweet, sweet lady who exemplifies Christs teachings (but she's not a man of God, so I guess she doesn't count). I know a bishop who brought his whole ward council to a soup kitchen each month, in lieu of a meeting. And then there is a brother in my ward that everyone considers apostate and inactive, because he does very little on Sundays and doesn't serve very well in his callings, but let me tell you, if you ever need anything, a helping hand, a strong back, a shoulder to cry on, he never, ever fails.

President Packer, for instance?

Nope.

Pahoran

Probably not him either, but who knows?

H.

[TAO]

How to best share the gospel: Be a good example. =)

This thread could use some exemplary people, I think. Volunteers? Anyone...?

Please?

[Daniel Peterson]

Parenthetical note:

I admire President Packer enormously, have had some personal contact with him (including several hours alone with him in his home), and think that the hostility and condemnation to which he is routinely subjected by many critics are quite unjust.

Just so you know.

[LDSToronto]

Again: remarkably cunning phraseology, carefully designed to pre-empt discussion of the real issue.

Geez, you can't win on the internet, can you? Either you are characterized as a yokel for poor grammar, or you are called cunning for your ability to write. I wasn't pre-empting any discussion, Pahoran. In fact, I was re-stating my original question.

And the misrepresentations just keep on coming. The Church is never going to tell her to stop loving her brother; nor do we label people as "Sinnahs!!" to be shunned. I think you have us confused with someone else. As you ought to know, we don't stop loving someone just because they are sinners, because, of course, we are all sinners.

Um... you must have read another post, because I didn't say any of that.

H.

[Senator]

I hate to interupt this love fest.

But has anyone else gotten a chuckle out of the course this thread has taken, considering the OP's title?

I'm really sorry EDB. But I'm affraid that you came to the wrong place to pose such a question.

[nicolasconnault]

I hate to interupt this love fest.

But has anyone else gotten a chuckle out of the course this thread has taken, considering the OP's title?

I'm really sorry EDB. But I'm affraid that you came to the wrong place to pose such a question.

Yes I find it very funny also

[LeSellers]

as anyone else gotten a chuckle out of the course this thread has taken, considering the OP's title?

Yes I find it very funny also

It's a lot of things. "Funny" is not among them.

Lehi

[Sky]

Parenthetical note:

I admire President Packer enormously, have had some personal contact with him (including several hours alone with him in his home), and think that the hostility and condemnation to which he is routinely subjected by many critics are quite unjust.

Just so you know.

Ditto to that.

I

[todd520]

I too was converted to the story the missionaries told. But, Hamba, the point of my questioning was to address the statement that Elder Bevan made about not having to address serious issues if a person feels the light and truth of the gospel. Once I discovered other truths about the church, that whole light and truth thing' cast a rather long shadow on the sanitized version of history that I'd been spoon fed. Many have found the same things I have.

Once you join the church, you are saddled with it's baggage, unwittingly or not. I'm simply saying let's fully disclose prior to baptism, and see if the results are still the same.

H.

LDSToronto,

Honestly, you sound a bit childish in your expectations.

People should join a church for what it can deliver into their lives in the present, in the here and now

Did you share a complete list of all your faults and sins when you went on a first date, or did you wait for the 3rd date?

Seriously no church or person leads with all their faults, especially if they are not relevant to what is being offered

I don't think the Catholic church should wallow in the sins of their past popes, the crusades, etc. etc

I don't think Protestants should wallow in their role perpetuating slavery in the US, or in the Klan, etc etc.

Why dwell on irrelevant sins of past members?

I'm not saying ignore them, just don't dwell on them.

[Sky]

It's a lot of things. "Funny" is not among them.

Lehi

I have to admit that I also got a bit of a chuckle from the direction this thread has gone.

But if you don't think it's funny, then do you want to enlighten us with what you think it is?

[Daniel Peterson]

I

[LDSToronto]

Did you share a complete list of all your faults and sins when you went on a first date, or did you wait for the 3rd date?

Seriously no church or person leads with all their faults, especially if they are not relevant to what is being offered

I don't think the Catholic church should wallow in the sins of their past popes, the crusades, etc. etc

I don't think Protestants should wallow in their role perpetuating slavery in the US, or in the Klan, etc etc.

Why dwell on irrelevant sins of past members?

I'm not saying ignore them, just don't dwell on them.

Joining a church is not the same as casual dating. It's a commitment. There are life changes and demands. And while I agree that the elders need not introduce a comprehensive history on the first door knock, I think it behooves us to share a bit more than what we do now, as someone gets closer to baptism.

Let's extend the dating analogy. Suppose the relationship progressed to marriage, and after about 5 years of marriage, you find out that your new spouse was hiding a secret from you - s/he used to be an escort in college. S/he's no longer an escort, but s/he didn't tell you; you found out because a friend of yours found an old advertisement on the internet and sent it your way. There is no doubt it's him/her, and when you search for more evidence, you happen upon his/her old appointment book, see all of his/her clients and appointments, and get a pretty good picture of what was going on. Eventually you confront him/her, and it turns out it was him/her, but s/he's got excuses - money was tight, couldn't get a job, it's not really that bad, etc.

So tell me, would having that information prior to making a life long commitment be more or less beneficial than having it after? How do you feel now that you've discovered this news about your spouse's past?

H.

[Daniel Peterson]

Joining a church is not the same as casual dating. It's a commitment. There are life changes and demands. And while I agree that the elders need not introduce a comprehensive history on the first door knock, I think it behooves us to share a bit more than what we do now, as someone gets closer to baptism.

What sins and blemishes exist in the history of the Church -- comparable in any way to your bride's having been a professional escort -- that, you feel, need to be disclosed to investigators before baptism?

Given the essential nature of marriage, and the apparent essential nature of escort services, your bride's past career as a prostitute would seem to be of central relevance. What analogously central but apparently suppressed facts about the Church's past do you believe ought to be included in the missionary lessons?

[nicolasconnault]

Joining a church is not the same as casual dating. It's a commitment. There are life changes and demands. And while I agree that the elders need not introduce a comprehensive history on the first door knock, I think it behooves us to share a bit more than what we do now, as someone gets closer to baptism.

Let's extend the dating analogy. Suppose the relationship progressed to marriage, and after about 5 years of marriage, you find out that your new spouse was hiding a secret from you - s/he used to be an escort in college. S/he's no longer an escort, but s/he didn't tell you; you found out because a friend of yours found an old advertisement on the internet and sent it your way. There is no doubt it's him/her, and when you search for more evidence, you happen upon his/her old appointment book, see all of his/her clients and appointments, and get a pretty good picture of what was going on. Eventually you confront him/her, and it turns out it was him/her, but s/he's got excuses - money was tight, couldn't get a job, it's not really that bad, etc.

So tell me, would having that information prior to making a life long commitment be more or less beneficial than having it after? How do you feel now that you've discovered this news about your spouse's past?

At which stage do you feel your "bride" should disclose her colourful past? Right at the start? Surely not a good ice-breaker. Just before marriage? "Honey, now that I've secured your trust and eternal love, I think you should know some things about my past..."

[todd520]

Joining a church is not the same as casual dating. It's a commitment. There are life changes and demands. And while I agree that the elders need not introduce a comprehensive history on the first door knock, I think it behooves us to share a bit more than what we do now, as someone gets closer to baptism.

Let's extend the dating analogy. Suppose the relationship progressed to marriage, and after about 5 years of marriage, you find out that your new spouse was hiding a secret from you - s/he used to be an escort in college. S/he's no longer an escort, but s/he didn't tell you; you found out because a friend of yours found an old advertisement on the internet and sent it your way. There is no doubt it's him/her, and when you search for more evidence, you happen upon his/her old appointment book, see all of his/her clients and appointments, and get a pretty good picture of what was going on. Eventually you confront him/her, and it turns out it was him/her, but s/he's got excuses - money was tight, couldn't get a job, it's not really that bad, etc.

So tell me, would having that information prior to making a life long commitment be more or less beneficial than having it after? How do you feel now that you've discovered this news about your spouse's past?

H.

H, I'm a new convert myself. While investigating, it was made very clear to me that the Church was made up of imperfect and sinful men.

That equates to the wife telling me she was not virginal. If I felt it was important, I had the option of digging deep and cataloging all her sins before marriage

I would also have the option to focus on whether we now shared a moral foundation etc that would allow us to move forward together.

Net, I had the information before the commitment, even if I didn't have specifics on all the sins.

[Calm]

Yes I find it very funny also

It is an inherent danger to what the good elder is trying to do when posting in a place that involves a healthy and sometimes not so healthy level of debate and criticism.

[Pahoran]

Visit Canada. Gay marriage is real.

A real legal fiction, which the Church opposes for morally sound reasons.

Or neither of us are apostate. Just share different views on some stuff.

You said, "I also believe that those who call themselves prophets today have led this church astray." There is room for a spectrum of opinions on a wide range of subjects within the Church; that the Lord's anointed servants are following his program is not one of them.

Either you are right and they are wrong, or they are right and you are wrong.

It happens that they are right.

Not sure why you keep harping on this. I'm not looking to earn your trust. But for the record, duly noted, you don't trust me.

Because you, Toronto, have been deliberately attempting to sow mistrust towards the brethren. You made trust an issue.

And I trust them.

You aren't deliberately pointing me towards anti-Christian material or encouraging me to look into the authenticity of Christ's story, are you, Pahoran? Because if you are, that seems like you are preaching false doctrine. Not saying you are, but it's the impression I get...

I'm pointing out the inconsistency of your position. I am recommending that you resolve that inconsistency by adopting the same approch to the Lord's modern servants as you do towards his ancient ones.

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that members don't sustain me? (hint: they do) Or are you saying that it bugs me that I'm not something more? (hint: I'm perfectly happy with my lot in life) Or does it irk you that I can hold these thoughts and remain a credible leader in the church?

If the members in your stake sustain you, then that can only be because it has never come to a showdown between sustaining you and sustaining the apostles and prophets. However, it seems that I know more of your real views than the poor unsuspecting Saints in Toronto do. If I lived in your stake, knowing what most of them apparently don't, I would find that sustaining the apostles and prophets utterly precludes sustaining you.

Thus, I am forced to conclude that you are not a "credible leader in the church." You maintain your position only by dissembling your true views.

I've shared my views here, but I haven't told anyone else they need to believe them...

Excuse me, but wasn't this you?

Unfortunately, the church as it stands today, with it's multiple histories, and prophets who can't distinguish between revelation and personal opinion, and discriminatory social policy, does not meet the standard of disclosure, nor does it meet the standard of trust.

Attempting to persuade us to distrust the Church. And this:

As for the church, not nearly as honest. Don't treat Christ asking you to do something the same as the church asking you to do something. The two are separate, Christ meets the burden of trust, the church does not.

That's direct advocacy, Toronto. That's proselytizing.

And it's proselytizing for a position that is in direct opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ.

I don't think your reaction here is inappropriate. In fact, I wouldn't expect anything less. I don't think you need a disciplinary council, but then again, I never claimed you'd need one.

Oh, and my stake president says I don't need one either.

And your Stake President is fully aware of your pertinacious, public opposition to the Church and its leaders?

Yes or no?

Just so you know: I know without a doubt that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth; there is no other. And I know that when the Lord's anointed servants speak his mind and will to us, then it is exactly the same as if he were speaking to us in person, and we are without excuse if we rebel against their direction.

And I am happy that President Boyd K. Packer is in every respect a man of God.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

Geez, has this gotten persnonal enough?

[Hestia]

Geez, has this gotten persnonal enough?

Yes, it has and has strayed away from the original post. I suggest the Elder start such threads in Social Forum where debate is not allowed.