Libs Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Libs:Lots depends on what we consider reasonable. Is polygamy among consenting adults reasonable?I believe it is, yes...among consenting adults. Would you disagree?I think the church's position has been that it is wrong in secular society, without the direct guidance of Heavenly Father. But, in a "free society", I think it is reasonable to allow it.
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Libs:I'm fine with consenting adults, but that isn't what the law reads.
BCSpace Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Steve's basic position on SS marriage very much has to do with his belief in separation of church and state. It's been a long while, since this event took place, so I don't want to misrepresent his views, as my memory of his speech is very faded. But, roughly, he doesn't believe personal religious views should interfere with the rights of others, in a free society, including their right to pursuit of happiness, as long as it is not interfering with the rights of others.Well, there is an argument to made made for that; agency etc. However, the Church has staked out a public position on this particular issue.
Libs Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Libs:I'm fine with consenting adults, but that isn't what the law reads.Polygamous relationships are against the law, currently (is that what you meant?). I meant, if it were up for a vote, I would vote to support legalizing polygamous marriages. Edited May 28, 2012 by Libs
Libs Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Well, there is an argument to made made for that; agency etc. However, the Church has staked out a public position on this particular issue.Yes, I know. I understand why. OTOH, if I were still an active member...I would have a difficult time with this, as a political position. I would fall on the side of people like Steve Young.
BCSpace Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Yes, I know. I understand why. OTOH, if I were still an active member...I would have a difficult time with this, as a political position. I would fall on the side of people like Steve Young.I don't think we actually know where Steve Young falls:http://www.ksl.com/?...148&sid=4686916..though as you are claiming there may be new information. But we do know where the Church falls and where the Church falls and one's relative position to that is what actually comes up in interviews and that is all that matters relative to your OP. Edited May 28, 2012 by BCSpace
Libs Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Yes, that looks like a couple of years before I saw him speak in at this event. The Prop 8 initiative had already won. But, there was no doubt about his position on that proposition. I think he just didn't want the kind of publicity he was getting.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 I'm a very, very serious political conservative, as a casual skimming through of my blog should make obvious. But I don't for a moment believe that non-conservatives, simply for being non-conservatives, have no place in the Church nor that I have any standing whatsoever to declare them as less in favor with God.I just want to put that on the record..Again, agreed.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Thanks, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad to hear that. I have to say, I have (fairly often) seen LDS members claim that one cannot be a member in good standing AND a liberal....just not possible (claims an LDS friend of mine).I am about as right wing as anyone and that is totally untrue.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 I don't think we actually know where Steve Young falls:....And yet, earlier, you seemed quite confident about that.
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) The thing is, regarding Steve Young, he did not support prop 8, but he made it very clear that he did not represent the church's view, on this issue, and also made it clear that the LDS Church would not change their view on this issue (that question did come up, about the possibility of change). Steve explained that ss marriage went against the basic doctrine and intrinsic principles of the church, and that would not change. I really wish I did have a recording of his talk, because he did such a good job of, not only, defending his own position, but in defending the church's position, as well. He did not want to be seen as opposing the church, in principle, which is why I think he didn't like some of the publicity he was getting. Edited May 29, 2012 by Libs 1
Stargazer Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I am one of six possible callings in a Stake that interviews for TR yes. Edited to add that I have served in those types of positions several times in my life. I try to avoid mentioning it because using that as evidence in a debate is a logical fallacy and I don't want you to believe something merely because I said so. However, sometimes it's good to know where I'm coming from.Well, that means you're either a stake president, bishop, or one of their counselors. I guess one could lay odds on your being a bishop's counselor, since that is the most likely.But BCSpace, I don't know why you are so coy about this. Dr. Peterson, for one, has freely admitted that he is/was a bishop, and he far more than you has the theoretical problem with logical fallacy, given his notoreity and so on. You needn't reveal the exact datum for my satisfaction, that's entirely up to you, but I am curious why you have this reluctance.For what it's worth, I have been in a calling where I could and did interview for temple recommends. I was a branch president over a serviceman's branch many years ago. Perhaps the Lord realizes that I am not really a leader, so I've spent more time as one kind of clerk or another. Presently I am the finance clerk in a single's branch (as well as the ward website administrator and stake emergency communications specialist (due to Ham radio license).
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 I haven't read through this thread, but here's my general take:Some critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge anything good in Mormonism, so it's not surprising that they give this topic a negative spin, too: "You can believe anything you want, but you can't teach it or speak about it." A recipe, they say, for pretense and hypocrisy. A tyrannical joke, permitting no meaningful freedom, constraining real freedom of expression, etc. A hint that the Church is moving in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, etc.Well, life is complicated.But there is no formal Church movement in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, neither overt nor covert. Certainly the Maxwell Institute isn't (contrary to suggestions from some who know nothing) moving in that direction. And there seems no discernible or significant movement that way among the general membership.What this informal policy comes down to, it seems to me, is the following: The Church has an obligation to maintain its teachings, to see that the Gospel, as its ordained stewards understand and have received it, is taught in all the congregations and meetings of the Saints, and that things contradictory to the Gospel or even foreign to it are not taught. Not to do so would be to desert their appointed posts as watchmen on the walls of Zion. Thus, public expressions of belief are a matter of interest to Church leaders. But they have no intention of launching an inquisition into the private beliefs of Church members, which, presumably, exist along a broad spectrum (perhaps varying from week to week) from outright faithlessness through casual and anguished agnosticism to, among the vast majority of active Saints, some greater or lesser degree of resolute confidence and commitment. There will be no wiretaps, no opening of private letters, no monitoring of personal emails, no bishop-led seizures of diaries, no network of spies and informants.This is a good thing, isn't it? I mean, I really fail to see how it's a negative.We're denounced for being a dictatorial and authoritarian church and we're denounced for not being one.P.S. Incidentally, the fact that the Church doesn't actively seek out and try to excommunicate those who doubt or disbelieve in the historicity of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean, by a long shot, that the Brethren view that position with equanimity or indifference. The book's historical authenticity is very much the official position of the Church, and I strongly affirm it. But I also don't favor launching a witch hunt to identify those who might have reservations on the matter.Okay, this post makes sense to me, now. I rarely read at Mormon Discussions, but I went over there to see what was going on, in regards to recent comments about you (Dr. Peterson), and was very surprised to see a discussion of this thread over there. After reading the comments there, your comments here made more sense. When I first read your post, I kind of scratched my head, because I didn't see any comments on this thread that would lead one to believe that there was a "movement" in the church to drop the claims that the Book of Mormon is valid history. Now, I see where that came from.My, my....bizarre...kinda.
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I don't think we actually know where Steve Young falls:....And yet, earlier, you seemed quite confident about that.I was quite confident about Steve Young's wife backtracking yes. Still am.The thing is, regarding Steve Young, he did not support prop 8, but he made it very clear that he did not represent the church's view, on this issue, and also made it clear that the LDS Church would not change their view on this issue (that question did come up, about the possibility of change). Steve explained that ss marriage went against the basic doctrine and intrinsic principles of the church, and that would not change. I really wish I did have a recording of his talk, because he did such a good job of, not only, defending his own position, but in defending the church's position, as well. He did not want to be seen as opposing the church, in principle, which is why I think he didn't like some of the publicity he was getting.Yes I would be interested in seeing that. It would be very unfortunate, but as I stated before, being in good standing with the Church, which has to navigate in the world, does not automatically mean being in good standing with God. Given the nature of the retraction, it seems more like both of them have made certain...compromises. Also unfortunate if the Church's stance took a back seat. Matthew 10 comes to mind.So have you determined, as per your OP, whether or not someone is liying in those circumstances? I made that determination long ago and have so far succesfully avoided those circumstances.Well, that means you're either a stake president, bishop, or one of their counselors. I guess one could lay odds on your being a bishop's counselor, since that is the most likely.Your odds making would seem deficient considering the contexts I've given before.....
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Okay, this post makes sense to me, now. I rarely read at Mormon Discussions, but I went over there to see what was going on, in regards to recent comments about you (Dr. Peterson), and was very surprised to see a discussion of this thread over there. After reading the comments there, your comments here made more sense. When I first read your post, I kind of scratched my head, because I didn't see any comments on this thread that would lead one to believe that there was a "movement" in the church to drop the claims that the Book of Mormon is valid history. Now, I see where that came from.My, my....bizarre...kinda.Where DCP could be wrong is that no LDS person has proposed a witch hunt. Beliefs come up in interviews as a matter of course, not that we're seeking anyone out. Beliefs also come up if someone's made themselves public and famous. Then we question more carefully. We have to.
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 Question more carefully in the Temple interview, you mean? I thought only certain, specific, questions could be asked?
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Question more carefully in the Temple interview, you mean?Yes.I thought only certain, specific, questions could be asked?We don't "add to the requirements" that is correct. The Spirit may direct or something may have been brought to our attention. But they are always going to be about one of the specific questions.
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Yes I would be interested in seeing that. It would be very unfortunate, but as I stated before, being in good standing with the Church, which has to navigate in the world, does not automatically mean being in good standing with God. Given the nature of the retraction, it seems more like both of them have made certain...compromises. Also unfortunate if the Church's stance took a back seat. Matthew 10 comes to mind.BC, it would appear that there are a lot of LDS who did not agree with the church's stance on Prop 8. I don't have a specific number or percentage, but I know I read something about that, awhile back. I was also told (by a friend) that non-support of prop 8 was an option and no one would be disciplined for that. You did mention an excommunication, but I have not heard of anything like that. I have one LDS friend (from England) who very much disagreed with the church's involvement with prop 8 (and was pretty vocal about it with everyone)..and she is still a very active, recommend holding member.So have you determined, as per your OP, whether or not someone is liying in those circumstances? I made that determination long ago and have so far succesfully avoided those circumstances.In regards to Book of Mormon historicity, I think someone could answer the Temple interview questions very honestly and still hold the view that the Book of Mormon "may" not be true history. The question you brought up, I don't think was specific enough, to really be a stumbling point. (IMHO). Edited May 29, 2012 by Libs
Garden Girl Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 P.S. Incidentally, the fact that the Church doesn't actively seek out and try to excommunicate those who doubt or disbelieve in the historicity of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean, by a long shot, that the Brethren view that position with equanimity or indifference. The book's historical authenticity is very much the official position of the Church, and I strongly affirm it. But I also don't favor launching a witch hunt to identify those who might have reservations on the matter.Libs...Until I read this part of DP's post I too was confused... and still don't understand what DP was saying about the Church not formally moving in the direction of a historical BoM, nor the general membership... Huh??I am heartened to see DP state that the book's historical authenticity is the official position of the Church... I thought perhaps something had changed...GG
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 Yes.We don't "add to the requirements" that is correct. The Spirit may direct or something may have been brought to our attention. But they are always going to be about one of the specific questions.Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 Libs...Until I read this part of DP's post I too was confused... and still don't understand what DP was saying about the Church not formally moving in the direction of a historical BoM, nor the general membership... Huh??I am heartened to see DP state that the book's historical authenticity is the official position of the Church... I thought perhaps something had changed...GGDr. Peterson's clarification about "not formally moving in the direction of non-historicity" was made in response to a critic over on the other board, who suggested that perhaps the church was moving in that direction. It definitely makes more sense if you read the thread over there...although, you may not want to wander over there.
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 But BCSpace, I don't know why you are so coy about this. Dr. Peterson, for one, has freely admitted that he is/was a bishop, and he far more than you has the theoretical problem with logical fallacy, given his notoreity and so on.Indeed he does.You needn't reveal the exact datum for my satisfaction, that's entirely up to you, but I am curious why you have this reluctance.Besides the logical fallacy issue, my observation is that the rancor towards him and some others stems, in part, directly from the knowledge of their positions. I am often dismissed as a nobody which makes my satisfaction in defending the Church even greater. It's like my philosophy of fishing. I like to use as light a line and tackle as possible. I even start with my worst arguments if I have several and never reveal my best hand until I have to.For what it's worth, I have been in a calling where I could and did interview for temple recommends. I was a branch president over a serviceman's branch many years ago.Cool.Perhaps the Lord realizes that I am not really a leader, so I've spent more time as one kind of clerk or another. Presently I am the finance clerk in a single's branch (as well as the ward website administrator and stake emergency communications specialist (due to Ham radio license).I keep joking publically in my Stake about getting released and try to make a few outrageous statements to make that happen but it never seems to work. But seriously, most statements I've made here and on other boards, which some find to be outrageous, I stand by 100%.
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Dr. Peterson's clarification about "not formally moving in the direction of non-historicity" was made in response to a critic over on the other board, who suggested that perhaps the church was moving in that direction. It definitely makes more sense if you read the thread over there...although, you may not want to wander over there. Assuming it's the one titled about SG and whose OP references this thread started by you directly, I've already posted in that thread several times and was the first to mention that the Church is not moving in a nonhistorical direction regarding the BoM.
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 Assuming it's the one titled about SG and whose OP references this thread started by you directly, I've already posted in that thread several times and was the first to mention that the Church is not moving in a nonhistorical direction regarding the BoM.Yes...over there. But, I don't think that was ever mentioned here. Not that I recall, anyway. It just never came up, here.
BCSpace Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Yes...over there. But, I don't think that was ever mentioned here. Not that I recall, anyway. It just never came up, here.He mentioned the direction the Church is taking (or not taking) in post #79 of this thread. I take it he was addressing critics of the Church though there seemed to be a shot taken in a different direction which is why I mentioned he could be mistaken. He can have the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned.
Recommended Posts