A Very Refreshing Ensign Article...Cudos To The Church

[nutshell]

I'm one who is very glad that my wife must have also gotten the message “Just love him!” and have also found the following to hold true in my situation:

"Already the answer I have received to love, trust, and serve my husband has strengthened our marriage in profound ways."

Refreshing article and a possitive direction for the church to acknowledge those in this situation.

[cwald]

I'm one who is very glad that my wife must have also gotten the message “Just love him!” ...

Yes, as am I.

[John Ping Pong]

I think the basic message of the gospel is one of gathering, of uniting, of binding.

It is the destroyer who seeks to drive us apart.

[selek1]

Your absolutistic theology

The wicked often take the truth to be hard.

Please demonstrate- factually and scripturally- where my statements are in error.

reminds me of a certain MorningStar,

That's easily the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I consider that poster to be a good friend and one very sharp cookie.

who according to LDS theology, proposed an absolutistic method of redemption void of true agency and choice.

I somehow doubt your characterization of Morning Star's opinions is accurate.

She tended to be correct on matters of theology, and would never go for so silly a caricature as you paint.

The third option sounds so much better.

There is no "third choice"- you can either follow Christ in humility and obedience or you can follow a path which will lead you elsewhere. Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I think the basic message of the gospel is one of gathering, of uniting, of binding.

Indeed- but we are given specific guidelines on how, when, where, and why.

The gates of Heaven narrow and guarded. There is but one path which leads to salvation- and not everyone who cries, "Lord, Lord!" will be allowed in.

It is the destroyer who seeks to drive us apart.

It is also the destroyer who seeks to hide the truth of the Gospel and water-down the hard truths it contains.

[Damien the Leper]

The wicked often take the truth to be hard.

Please demonstrate- factually and scripturally- where my statements are in error.

That's easily the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I consider that poster to be a good friend and one very sharp cookie.

I somehow doubt your characterization of Morning Star's opinion is accurate.

There is no "third choice"- but itching ears and all that.

I apologize. I wasn't speaking of that MorningStar. I further apologize for my poor performance in comparing your interpretation of theology to that of a certain rebellious figure. Then again, I suspect, as usual, you are trying to be cunningly coy.

You do enjoy ad hom attacks, Selek. Good thing you are not the arbitor of things good and evil, obedient and wicked, etc.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Indeed- but we are given specific guidelines on how, when, where, and why.

The gates of Heaven narrow and guarded. There is but one path which leads to salvation- and not everyone who cries, "Lord, Lord!" will be allowed in.

It is also the destroyer who seeks to hide the truth of the Gospel and water-down the hard truths it contains.

Hard truths incited by whom? Please provide substantial evidence for this claim and not hearsay.

[John Ping Pong]

It is also the destroyer who seeks to hide the truth of the Gospel and water-down the hard truths it contains.

Seems to me the LDS Church is doing that all on its own.

[DBMormon]

We need a larger tent. Not smaller. I hope the church membership will gravitate towards a more Universal message of acceptance and love and understanding, rather than the "us select LDS few will be separated from the rest of you in the Celestial Kingdom." type of posts I've read on this thread.

Can we do that without altering the basics? As I don't see those things changing as in anyway conducive to the church

- FATHER SON HOLY GHOST SEPARATE

- CHRIST WAS REAL AND MADE AN ATONEMENT

- JOSEPH WAS A PROPHET AND HE RECEIVED REAL PLATES BASED ON A REAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AND WAS VISITED BY GOD AND CHRIST.

- PART OF LAST ONE BUT BOOK OF MORMON IS THE VERY WORD OF GOD EVEN IF SOME MEANING IS LOST IN TRANSLATION

- CHURCH HAS AUTHORITY, PRIESTHOOD, AND THE NEEDED ORDIANCES AND IS LED BY PROPHETS AND APOSTLES

- TEMPLE HAS A REAL PURPOSE IN PROVIDING ORDINANCES FOR THE DECEASED

If any person accepts those 6 points I consider them a believing mormon. I am also willing to respect their views on anything else, though I may likely part ways on things I see as against the Doctrine of Christ as I see it.

CWALD - What are your thoughts on these 6, can you subscribe to them while advocating a bigger tent. Can you agree that these 5 can not be altered, that no matter how big the tent gets, these 5 must remain?

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[Buzzard]

01. Love one another...even those who come to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be...agree to disagree but still love and accept that two people CAN look at the same material and come away with perfectly justifiable reasons for their respective conclusions.

02. A more open and honest discussion of the "other" reasons behind disaffection i.e. the known issues for disbelief and why active members chose disbelief over belief.

03.The church isn't perfect...we've made some mistakes along the way and we'd like to apologize for...X,Y,Z.

04. Better accomodation for gays who chose to remain believers...navagate a path for them.

05. Allow All family members to attend their own children/siblings weddings or IF this is too much...Allow for Civil Weddings to be followed immediantly by a temple wedding.

There's more but that any one of these would be a great second step...

Bottom line Bridge Building, Accomdation and a Larger Tent.

Some of these have already come to pass, others never will

. #1-The church already holds this position, some of us imperfect members just need to become better at it. If we all became perfect, the mass translation would disrupt the Utah economy big time.

#2-Just look around. If this board and others like it isn't an open discussion, I don't know what is. If you expect a SS lesson on polyandry, not everyone is as interested in that sort of stuff as we are.

#3 The first part is out there already. Apologies will probably not be forthcoming, as they would only serve to embolden our enemies.

#4 This already exists. It's called the law of chastity. Obey it, along with other commandments, and you are in full fellowship in the church. Homosexual acts are a violation of this law, but that subject has and currently is being debated ad nauseum on other threads.

#5 Doubt it will ever happen, except in the sense that any friend or relative who is willing to do what it takes to obtain a TR is more than welcome to attend.

So, as I look around, I see a big tent, but with a straight gate for entrance. Based on my reading of the NT, I hope that gate never becomes broad.

[cwald]

Can we do that without altering the basics? As I don't see those things changing as in anyway conducive to the church

- FATHER SON HOLY GHOST SEPARATE

- CHRIST WAS REAL AND MADE AN ATONEMENT

- JOSEPH WAS A PROPHET AND HE RECEIVED REAL PLATES BASED ON A REAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AND WAS VISITED BY GOD AND CHRIST.

- PART OF LAST ONE BUT BOOK OF MORMON IS THE VERY WORD OF GOD EVEN IF SOME MEANING IS LOST IN TRANSLATION

- CHURCH HAS AUTHORITY, PRIESTHOOD, AND THE NEEDED ORDIANCES AND IS LED BY PROPHETS AND APOSTLES

- TEMPLE HAS A REAL PURPOSE IN PROVIDING ORDINANCES FOR THE DECEASED

If any person accepts those 6 points I consider them a believing mormon. I am also willing to respect their views on anything else, though I may likely part ways on things I see as against the Doctrine of Christ as I see it.

CWALD - What are your thoughts on these 6, can you subscribe to them while advocating a bigger tent. Can you agree that these 5 can not be altered, that no matter how big the tent gets, these 5 must remain?

No, I do no believe these 5 things must remain.

And I do appreciate your politeness. One of the few faithful believers here who have done so. Thanks.

FATHER SON HOLY GHOST SEPARATE ---- I don't know and I don't care, and it is not important...even for mormons who want to get a temple recommend. It's not part of the questions.

- CHRIST WAS REAL AND MADE AN ATONEMENT - Yes.

- JOSEPH WAS A PROPHET AND HE RECEIVED REAL PLATES BASED ON A REAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AND WAS VISITED BY GOD AND CHRIST. - It's all good from a certain perspective. But why does this have to be a core? If the BoM was not a historical narrative, would it make it any less prophetic and good, and make JS any less of a prophet who developed some great spiritual concepts and dogma...that has benefited the planet? Do I really need to believe this to worshop god and celebrate the gospel in sacrament meeting with you? Do I need to believe in the literalness of it, to find value in it and be part of my mormon family and community?

Also, it's not important to believe this to get a temple recommend. IIRC, they only ask if you believe that JS was a prophet and restored the gospel. I have no problem with that concept....it's pretty vague, which I think the leaders made it so on purpose.

- PART OF LAST ONE BUT BOOK OF MORMON IS THE VERY WORD OF GOD EVEN IF SOME MEANING IS LOST IN TRANSLATION - No. I don't think that is necessary to be mormon. Which makes me sad, because I find value in it regardless and don't understand why I can't have that faith and still worship god with the mormons.

And, it's not important to have that kind of belief or faith...nor is it part of the temple recommend questions.

I think the church CAN have a bigger tent, and not make these six items the core and tenants for participation and membership. That is just my opinion.

I will think about the other two for a bit longer.

[selek1]

Then again, I suspect, as usual, you are trying to be cunningly coy.

I don't think either "cunning" or "coy" have ever been used to describe me.

Instead, I tend to be far more plain spoken.

I prefer hard truths to candy-coated lies (or as another poster has it in his tagline, "Give me a hundred honest wolves over one lying turncoat."

Good thing you are not the arbitor of things good and evil, obedient and wicked, etc.

We are commanded to judge righteously (when we judge).

You still haven't demonstrated factually or doctrinally where my statements were wrong.

[sjdawg]

. He became very embittered at first, and even asked his name to be removed. The bishop wisely refused, and told him that that would upset his wife and kids, and he wouldn't do it!

It is not the Bishop's right to refuse. I'm glad it worked out this time but the Bishop and the Church could have had some legal liability relating to this refusal.

[cinepro]

That's an interesting Ensign article, and a good counterpoint to this recent Salon article:

But I’m a good Mormon wife

Sean and I had the perfect life. Then his faith started to crumble -- and mine did, too

By Maren Stephenson

“I don’t believe in God,” my husband whispered in the darkness of our bedroom.

My breath caught, and I was afraid to look at him, this boy I met and married eight years ago.

I was only 19 on the day we were sealed for eternity, the wet snow blowing into our faces as we exited the Portland, Ore., temple. I imagined a life of Church service, my husband at my side as we finished our BYU degrees, raised our children, and served missions together in our old age. On the night we got engaged, we struck a deal. “I’ll get you to heaven,” I said. “But you have to keep me here on earth.”

Now his confession hung over our nuptial bed. And though I’d known this was coming — he’d been struggling with his faith for at least two years — I’d never considered what I’d say. Sean had always been the rational one, a brilliant computer scientist who spoke sense when I was in the throes of clinical depression. Now, my thoughts went still as I groped for his hand. Before I could process what I was saying, forbidden words slipped off my tongue. “You are more important to me than the Church,” I said.

....

Edited June 22, 2012 by cinepro

[daz2]

My thought is that we should love the sinner and hate the sin. Had the author of the article listened completely to God, she would have heard God say: "Love your husband but hate is unbelief. And because you care for him, you should warn him that unless he repents of his unbelief, he will go to Hell. And just in case he forgets that, then everyday you should say, 'Sweetheart, I love you but hate your sinful unbelief. And if you don't repent now, and start believing now (whether or not you feel you can), you are going to Hell, and I will be stuck finding another husband."

[zerinus]

It is not the Bishop's right to refuse. I'm glad it worked out this time but the Bishop and the Church could have had some legal liability relating to this refusal.

He knew him well enough to know what he could get away with!

[cwald]

My thought is that we should love the sinner and hate the sin. Had the author of the article listened completely to God, she would have heard God say: "Love your husband but hate is unbelief. And because you care for him, you should warn him that unless he repents of his unbelief, he will go to Hell. And just in case he forgets that, then everyday you should say, 'Sweetheart, I love you but hate your sinful unbelief. And if you don't repent now, and start believing now (whether or not you feel you can), you are going to Hell, and I will be stuck finding another husband."

Wow. And there is the problem. Which is why this article is a good thing...so folks will quite saying this stuff to their spouse.

[nutshell]

My thought is that we should love the sinner and hate the sin. Had the author of the article listened completely to God, she would have heard God say: "Love your husband but hate is unbelief. And because you care for him, you should warn him that unless he repents of his unbelief, he will go to Hell. And just in case he forgets that, then everyday you should say, 'Sweetheart, I love you but hate your sinful unbelief. And if you don't repent now, and start believing now (whether or not you feel you can), you are going to Hell, and I will be stuck finding another husband."

Sure hope you never end up in a similar situation!

[selek1]

And because you care for him, you should warn him that unless he repents of his unbelief, he will go to Hell. And just in case he forgets that, then everyday you should say, 'Sweetheart, I love you but hate your sinful unbelief. And if you don't repent now, and start believing now (whether or not you feel you can), you are going to Hell, and I will be stuck finding another husband."

Wow- even I'm not that tactless.

Good thing you're being sarcastic- some fool might believe that nonsense.

[Craig Paxton]

Wow. And there is the problem. Which is why this article is a good thing...so folks will quite saying this stuff to their spouse.

I think it was posted tounge in cheek...at least I hope it was...

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No, I do no believe these 5 things must remain.

And I do appreciate your politeness. One of the few faithful believers here who have done so. Thanks.

FATHER SON HOLY GHOST SEPARATE ---- I don't know and I don't care, and it is not important...even for mormons who want to get a temple recommend. It's not part of the questions.

- CHRIST WAS REAL AND MADE AN ATONEMENT - Yes.

- JOSEPH WAS A PROPHET AND HE RECEIVED REAL PLATES BASED ON A REAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AND WAS VISITED BY GOD AND CHRIST. - It's all good from a certain perspective. But why does this have to be a core? If the BoM was not a historical narrative, would it make it any less prophetic and good, and make JS any less of a prophet who developed some great spiritual concepts and dogma...that has benefited the planet? Do I really need to believe this to worshop god and celebrate the gospel in sacrament meeting with you? Do I need to believe in the literalness of it, to find value in it and be part of my mormon family and community?

Also, it's not important to believe this to get a temple recommend. IIRC, they only ask if you believe that JS was a prophet and restored the gospel. I have no problem with that concept....it's pretty vague, which I think the leaders made it so on purpose.

- PART OF LAST ONE BUT BOOK OF MORMON IS THE VERY WORD OF GOD EVEN IF SOME MEANING IS LOST IN TRANSLATION - No. I don't think that is necessary to be mormon. Which makes me sad, because I find value in it regardless and don't understand why I can't have that faith and still worship god with the mormons.

And, it's not important to have that kind of belief or faith...nor is it part of the temple recommend questions.

I think the church CAN have a bigger tent, and not make these six items the core and tenants for participation and membership. That is just my opinion.

I will think about the other two for a bit longer.

You might as well join the Community of Christ, who have already implemented the "open-mindedness" you are so keen on- instead of trying to make the LDS Church into their image.

[cwald]

My family, my tribe are lds.

Its not that easy.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think either "cunning" or "coy" have ever been used to describe me.

Instead, I tend to be far more plain spoken.

I prefer hard truths to candy-coated lies (or as another poster has it in his tagline, "Give me a hundred honest wolves over one lying turncoat."

We are commanded to judge righteously (when we judge).

You still haven't demonstrated factually or doctrinally where my statements were wrong.

Yet you have not demonstrated why you are correct either. You impose your theology because you assert its correctness and cite internal sources and doctrines to substantiate your claims. If you can propose a theological mindset that can in some way connect to Mormonism and is worthy of further attention such as the Christus Victor model or the New Perspective then maybe we can have a better discussion.

[cwald]

Oops. Thanks Craig. I don't know all the ins and outs over here.

I think it was posted tounge in cheek...at least I hope it was...

[Storm Rider]

My thought is that we should love the sinner and hate the sin. Had the author of the article listened completely to God, she would have heard God say: "Love your husband but hate is unbelief. And because you care for him, you should warn him that unless he repents of his unbelief, he will go to Hell. And just in case he forgets that, then everyday you should say, 'Sweetheart, I love you but hate your sinful unbelief. And if you don't repent now, and start believing now (whether or not you feel you can), you are going to Hell, and I will be stuck finding another husband."

I get the distinct impression that you are not real and a bit of a troll. You are just too much of a caricature of what a real LDS is; the whole schtick is too out of place and none of this fits well within any teaching of the LDS Church. Unbelief is not a sin; in fact, it is the very foundation upon which all faith is built. We find ourselves in unbelief and the Holy Spirit knocks on the door of our heart until we answer first in hope and then in faith.

Further, LDS don't believe in any type of hell that you are referring to. We believe in degrees of glory; hell is only for the sons of perdition.

Exactly how does one repent of unbelief? The answer is faith and faith is a work of the Spirit. There is a significant difference between unbelief and a person that seeks after darkness or after a sinful life. Unbelief does not equate with a sinful life; it equates only with a position of unbelief.

Lastly, the gospel of Jesus Christ is built upon "feeling" the Spirit. Learning to discern when the Spirit speaks and when it is our own desires or something else. We cherish those feelings of the Spirit and it is upon this rock of inspiration that the Church is built.

You are here under a false pretense or you have no understanding of the Gospel and/or Church teachings. As I have stated, I suspect the former; regardless, you are not helpful and sadly ignorant of the Gospel.