Lds Man Denied Missionary Service, Temple Recommend B/C Of His Views On Ssm

[sethpayne]

Which would be an appropriate response for a missionary in my view.

+1

[rodheadlee]

It's just an opinion. Holding an opinion is not a sin is it? I guess that would depend on what subject the opinion is about.

Having said that .... a missionary is a representative of the Church. As such, they need to present the Church's position on any given issue. Preaching personal opinions -- in any Church calling -- is never appropriate. Correct

As a missionary I held (and still do hold) an opinion on the origins of the Priesthood ban. While my opinion came up in discussions with comps etc... I never shared it with investigators because the Church has no position on the matter.

Edited March 27, 2013 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

dup

Edited March 27, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did you all miss the part where he said he believed SSM couples should be able to get sealed in the Temple? Why are you skipping over this fact in your self righteous indignation?

And that is what I think they want. I heard Daniel say that is not what he wants. That is fine. But I think the main thrust I think this movement is all about is to force churches that don't recognize it to recognize it and sanction it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is a slippery slope concern. Actually limiting rights to others now because of some hypothetical risk to my rights in the future that may or may not eventuate; The moral math does not add up on this.

I will be the first one to protest the intrusion of judicial and govt overreach into actual religious practice... OD1 anyone? SSM is currently not grappling with that issue.

Lol. But SSM is not even dealing with equality. That is what they are trying to get you to think it is about. You see no rights are limited right now as far as CA is concerned. They have civil unions that essential grant the sames rights and privilage that marriage does.

[Calm]

+1

You should have given the point to Robert since he was the first one to say it.

[MormonMason]

That is a slippery slope concern. Actually limiting rights to others now because of some hypothetical risk to my rights in the future that may or may not eventuate; The moral math does not add up on this.

I will be the first one to protest the intrusion of judicial and govt overreach into actual religious practice... OD1 anyone? SSM is currently not grappling with that issue.

Are you filing briefs with the courts, then? Are you actively supporting the rights of the Bible publishers to translate the texts correctly and use the word homosexual in the text? Fact is, the lawsuits are beginning already. That door is already opened. Lawsuits against churches are next and some actually are planning such when enough states make SSM legal and the Federal government finally succumbs to popular vote to repeal DOMA. It will happen. It behooves people to fight against that possibility unless all come out and make it so that it is not possible to do this as part of any new legislation. I also understand that it also must come in order to fulfill the prophecies of the holy scriptures that it will be in our day as it was in the days of Noah and of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is a moral obligation to act our consciences and use the political arena to stay that as long as possible, if we can. I know you disagree but that is the nature of the game, now isn't it? A good thing could potentially come out of all this, though, and that is the opening of the way for other alternative forms of marriage to be given the protection of law and the repeal of that part of Reynolds vs. United States, such as plural marriage. Things should get really interesting in the not too distant future.

[rockpond]

And that is what I think they want. I heard Daniel say that is not what he wants. That is fine. But I think the main thrust I think this movement is all about is to force churches that don't recognize it to recognize it and sanction it.

Fortunately, our constitution protects the rights of individuals to maintain their own religious beliefs and worship accordingly. But, that same constitution also requires that we provide legal recognition to the marriages of our homosexual citizens.

[rockpond]

Are you filing briefs with the courts, then? Are you actively supporting the rights of the Bible publishers to translate the texts correctly and use the word homosexual in the text? Fact is, the lawsuits are beginning already. That door is already opened. Lawsuits against churches are next and some actually are planning such when enough states make SSM legal and the Federal government finally succumbs to popular vote to repeal DOMA. It will happen. It behooves people to fight against that possibility unless all come out and make it so that it is not possible to do this as part of any new legislation. I also understand that it also must come in order to fulfill the prophecies of the holy scriptures that it will be in our day as it was in the days of Noah and of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is a moral obligation to act our consciences and use the political arena to stay that as long as possible, if we can. I know you disagree but that is the nature of the game, now isn't it? A good thing could potentially come out of all this, though, and that is the opening of the way for other alternative forms of marriage to be given the protection of law and the repeal of that part of Reynolds vs. United States, such as plural marriage. Things should get really interesting in the not too distant future.

I'm trying to support the U.S. Constitution so that it will protect all. That's why I believe that DOMA & Prop 8 must be overturned.

As a side note, I am not aware of the word "homosexual" appearing in the KJV Bible. Have I missed that somewhere? Are we strictly talking about other versions? I did a search and I can't find the word homosexual anywhere in the actual text of our canon (though it does appear in the study aids).

[Shanky82]

I really like Joanna Brooks and think she does good work.

If you read much of her stuff it is obvious that she is very aware of the risks from generalizations.

She is an excellent spokesperson for a current countercultural movement in the church. That is why she is drawn on a lot.

This is an interview that may have leading questions but it didn't need them as the individual was obviously happy to go there and likely would have regardless.

I do read her articles and it infuriates me.

[MormonMason]

I'm trying to support the U.S. Constitution so that it will protect all. That's why I believe that DOMA & Prop 8 must be overturned.

As a side note, I am not aware of the word "homosexual" appearing in the KJV Bible. Have I missed that somewhere? Are we strictly talking about other versions? I did a search and I can't find the word homosexual anywhere in the actual text of our canon (though it does appear in the study aids).

Yes, several modern versions of the Bible are using the correct English translation in a couple passages in the Bible. Check the NIV, NASB, NET, and NAB versions of the Bible, for example. Two of the companies that distribute these Bibles are being sued to be forced by the courts to take the word out of lists of sins that prevent people from entering into the kingdom of God. The problem is, the word belongs there. "Homosexual" as a word did not exist at the time of the KJV that we use was revised. Now that it is used it is a lot better and more accurate than "abusers of themselves with mankind." Practice of homosexual sin will keep people out of the kingdom of God, according to the Bible. More accurate translations make it easier to get that point across but people don't like it.

[rockpond]

Yes, several modern versions of the Bible are using the correct English translation in a couple passages in the Bible. Check the NIV, NASB, NET, and NAB versions of the Bible, for example. Two of the companies that distribute these Bibles are being sued to be forced by the courts to take the word out of lists of sins that prevent people from entering into the kingdom of God. The problem is, the word belongs there. "Homosexual" as a word did not exist at the time of the KJV that we use was revised. Now that it is used it is a lot better and more accurate than "abusers of themselves with mankind." Practice of homosexual sin will keep people out of the kingdom of God, according to the Bible. More accurate translations make it easier to get that point across but people don't like it.

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?

[klakak]

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?

I don't know if you are LDS or not, but if you are, then do you listen to the prophets and apostles?

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

[Wanderer7]

It's just an opinion. Holding an opinion is not a sin is it?

Having said that .... a missionary is a representative of the Church. As such, they need to present the Church's position on any given issue. Preaching personal opinions -- in any Church calling -- is never appropriate.

As a missionary I held (and still do hold) an opinion on the origins of the Priesthood ban. While my opinion came up in discussions with comps etc... I never shared it with investigators because the Church has no position on the matter.

Opinions, no. But direct opposition to church direction, yes. And it may be a sin to hold an opposing opinion if you express that opinion publicly. We all have things about the church we don't like 100%, but we accept it because we believe the church is led by God. I don't have to like it to obey it.

[rockpond]

I don't know if you are LDS or not, but if you are, then do you listen to the prophets and apostles?

http://www.lds.org/t...action?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/t...mation?lang=eng

I am LDS and I do listen to & read the words of the prophets and apostles.

I don't see where either of those links answers my questions about your statements on translation. Again, here's what I asked: "So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?"

[ERayR]

Opinions, no. But direct opposition to church direction, yes. And it may be a sin to hold an opposing opinion if you express that opinion publicly. We all have things about the church we don't like 100%, but we accept it because we believe the church is led by God. I don't have to like it to obey it.

Especially when I realize my likes and dislikes tend to be toward self centered.

[klakak]

I am LDS and I do listen to & read the words of the prophets and apostles.

I don't see where either of those links answers my questions about your statements on translation. Again, here's what I asked: "So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?"

That must be someone else, I never said anything about translations. My above post was my second on this website.

But anyway, my point, Bible, or not, prophets and apostles have said gay marriage and acting on homosexual temptations are sins. What more do you need?

[MormonMason]

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?

The Greek word literally means "men who bed men." It was well understood in its meaning in the Roman Era that it involved the act of men sodomizing other men. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is clear that practice of this sin will result in damnation and will forbid entrance into the kingdom of God. Repentance is possible, however, but only after sincere sorrow.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[rockpond]

That must be someone else, I never said anything about translations. My above post was my second on this website.

But anyway, my point, Bible, or not, prophets and apostles have said gay marriage and acting on homosexual temptations are sins. What more do you need?

My apologies... I didn't stop to look at the name, I thought it was MormonMason responding to my question.

I am curious about the translation issue that MormonMason raised.

[DBMormon]

What if a white man in 1977 said in his pre-mission interview he disagreed with the church's policy on Blacks and priesthood. Should he not be allowed to serve. He turned out correct! Also we must come to grips with Leaders not only can be wrong BUT ARE SOMETIMES.

Now, I grant we are not getting the church's (Stake President's) side of this story but on a simple hypothetical simplistic way - I would disagree completely in holding someone back only because they disagreed with a church policy, as long as they could go forward not soap boxing their position.

If this young man implied he would teach openly his disagreement, then it would not be appropriate for him to serve. I would say the same about the 1977 example I used as well.

[MormonMason]

My apologies... I didn't stop to look at the name, I thought it was MormonMason responding to my question.

I am curious about the translation issue that MormonMason raised.

I responded here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60458-lds-man-denied-missionary-service-temple-recommend-bc-of-his-views-on-ssm/page__st__60#entry1209241118

[klakak]

What if a white man in 1977 said in his pre-mission interview he disagreed with the church's policy on Blacks and priesthood. Should he not be allowed to serve. He turned out correct! Also we must come to grips with Leaders not only can be wrong BUT ARE SOMETIMES.

Now, I grant we are not getting the church's (Stake President's) side of this story but on a simple hypothetical simplistic way - I would disagree completely in holding someone back only because they disagreed with a church policy, as long as they could go forward not soap boxing their position.

If this young man implied he would teach openly his disagreement, then it would not be appropriate for him to serve. I would say the same about the 1977 example I used as well.

Please provide the source where homosexuality is just a temporary curse that will be broken and homosexuals are then allowed into the House of the Lord. While you're at it, add the one about God not being the same yesterday, today, and forever. You know, the one where His principles are always changing.

[rockpond]

The Greek word literally means "men who bed men." It was well understood in its meaning in the Roman Era that it involved the act of men sodomizing other men. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is clear that practice of this sin will result in damnation and will forbid entrance into the kingdom of God. Repentance is possible, however, but only after sincere sorrow.

So is that the only instance of where homosexual is a correct translation?

[rodheadlee]

What if a white man in 1977 said in his pre-mission interview he disagreed with the church's policy on Blacks and priesthood. Should he not be allowed to serve. He turned out correct! Also we must come to grips with Leaders not only can be wrong BUT ARE SOMETIMES.

Now, I grant we are not getting the church's (Stake President's) side of this story but on a simple hypothetical simplistic way - I would disagree completely in holding someone back only because they disagreed with a church policy, as long as they could go forward not soap boxing their position.

If this young man implied he would teach openly his disagreement, then it would not be appropriate for him to serve. I would say the same about the 1977 example I used as well.

He did imply that he couldn't keep to Church Doctrine on SSM so why try to compare it to blacks and the priesthood? What point are you actually trying to make here?

[rockpond]

Please provide the source where homosexuality is just a temporary curse that will be broken and homosexuals are then allowed into the House of the Lord. While you're at it, add the one about God not being the same yesterday, today, and forever. You know, the one where His principles are always changing.

God remains the same. Our understanding of what he wants for us isn't always spot on...

Lorenzo Snow:

“The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change his law of celestial marriage.” -- Historical Record, 1887, v. 6, p. 144

Brigham Young:

"Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion." -- Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291

As Latter-day Saints, our understanding changes periodically... isn't that part of the restorative process? Part of the blessing of continuing revelation? I'm not saying that it will. I'm just saying that we can't deny that further light and knowledge on this subject is yet to be revealed.

Edited March 27, 2013 by rockpond