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

[teddyaware]

The Church did it because it was the right thing to do, not because if The Church didn't, then the end of the world would soon follow.

Obviously, there are many regressive steps the rebellious people of the world will have to take before the aggregate ungodliness reaches the point of a critical mass that will eventually culminate in Armageddon. Regardless, by taking a courageous stand to defend the traditional institution and definition of the family, the Church attempted to thwart one of the great steps downward that will lead to the prophesied eventual divine judgement and retribution. Taking a bold stand in favor of Proposition 8 was an act of love and mercy, an attempt to spare the people of the world -- not just the LDS Church -- some of the baleful consequenses that will attend the dissolution of the traditional family on the way to the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Edited March 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Then in actual application they are never wrong it is only a possibility. You allow them to be wrong but are unable with certainty to know when those moments are....

Then what is the point in allowing them to have human frailities and not have to be perfect if you still are unwilling to cite any example where they in actuality were imperfect?

In actual application you are substituting your understanding for theirs. This is well and good and quite acceptable as long as you limit it to your personal beliefs and behavior. However, when you begin to publicly begin pronounce your wisdom and contradict Gods anointed you have stepped out of bounds and put your feet on the road to apostasy.

When I think one of the GA's have erred (and I do have some areas where I think they have) I do not speak of it publicly but rather mark it for further study. Some things I still think I am right about and some things I have come to understand better and adjusted my outlook accordingly.

Edited March 28, 2013 by ERayR

[DBMormon]

In actual application you are substituting your understanding for theirs. This is well and good and quite acceptable as long as you limit it to your personal beliefs and behavior. However, when you begin to publicly begin pronounce your wisdom and contradict Gods anointed you have stepped out of bounds and put your feet on the road to apostasy.

When I think one of the GA's have erred I do not speak of it publicly but rather mark it for further study. Some things I still think I am right about and some things I have come to understand better and adjusted my outlook accordingly.

The keep it to yourself and tow the line is an approach a cult would use. I would rather follow this

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful that they settle down in the state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence, (Church News, March 12, 1988, p. 16).

or this.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/122-80.pdf

Truth has nothing to fear. It should not fear more information, alternative opinions, ect.

There is a big difference between working against the church to reduce faith and voicing an opinion of dissent on a policy or doctrine which tries to do so with as little publicity and strongarming as possible but still voicing it.

I am perfectly ok with the latter

[ERayR]

Obviously, there are many regressive steps the rebellious people of the world will have to take before the aggregate ungodliness reaches the point of a critical mass that will eventually culminate in Armageddon. Regardless, by taking a courageous stand to defend the traditional institution and definition of the family, the Church attempted to thwart one of the great steps downward that will lead to the prophesied eventual divine judgement and retribution. Taking a bold stand in favor of Proposition 8 was an act of love and mercy, an attempt to spare the people of the world -- not just the LDS Church -- some of the baleful consequenses that will attend the dissolution of the traditional family on the way to the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

From my vantage point I would say there are not many left. From where we are at now critical mass could be triggered in a very short time.

[ERayR]

The keep it to yourself and tow the line is an approach a cult would use. I would rather follow this

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful that they settle down in the state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence, (Church News, March 12, 1988, p. 16).

or this.

https://www.sunstone...00000"> </span>

Truth has nothing to fear. It should not fear more information, alternative opinions, ect.

There is a big difference between working against the church to reduce faith and voicing an opinion of dissent on a policy or doctrine which tries to do so with as little publicity and strongarming as possible but still voicing it.

I am perfectly ok with the latter

Wrong again a cult requires strict obedience and does not encourage personal inquiry and the receipt of personal revelation. In a cult one is prohibited from personal understanding. I am all in favor of lively discussions on differing opinions. However there is a big difference in that and openly denouncing one of the GA's as being a fallen prophet and teaching false doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

It's a bit of a contradiction. Prop 8 makes heterosexual marriages the only ones recognized by the State, but Civil Unions have all the same rights, responsibilities, privileges, and duties, as a regular marriage.

[klakak]

Obviously, there are many regressive steps the rebellious people of the world will have to take before the aggregate ungodliness reaches the point of a critical mass that will eventually culminate in Armageddon. Regardless, by taking a courageous stand to defend the traditional institution and definition of the family, the Church attempted to thwart one of the great steps downward that will lead to the prophesied eventual divine judgement and retribution. Taking a bold stand in favor of Proposition 8 was an act of love and mercy, an attempt to spare the people of the world -- not just the LDS Church -- some of the baleful consequenses that will attend the dissolution of the traditional family on the way to the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I agree with you totally. I wasn't saying that it wasn't courageous or wasn't an act of love, because they totally were. I don't remember what my post was in reply to, but I think I was taking the post I replied to as meaning the church stood up for Prop 8 mainly to try to delay the end of times. I was simply implying that we don't know, neither do Church leaders, when the end will be, and that standing up in support of Prop 8 won't speed up or delay the end times, but it was absolutely the right thing to do.

[DBMormon]

Wrong again a cult requires strict obedience and does not encourage personal inquiry and the receipt of personal revelation. In a cult one is prohibited from personal understanding. I am all in favor of lively discussions on differing opinions. However there is a big difference in that and openly denouncing one of the GA's as being a fallen prophet and teaching false doctrine.

who is denouncing a prophet as fallen?

Also I am comfortable saying one has taught false doctrine. When Joseph Fielding Smith said the earth was only 6,000 years old, was that false doctrine? and if it wasn't then when leaders said it was millions of years old, was that false doctrine?

Is evolution a heresy or not and if it isn't is that false doctrine.

or

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

- aka some of what you have been taught and told and false doctrine and not binding on you

[thesometimesaint]

who is denouncing a prophet as fallen?

Also I am comfortable saying one has taught false doctrine. When Joseph Fielding Smith said the earth was only 6,000 years old, was that false doctrine? and if it wasn't then when leaders said it was millions of years old, was that false doctrine?

Is evolution a heresy or not and if it isn't is that false doctrine.

or

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

- aka some of what you have been taught and told and false doctrine and not binding on you

LDS doctrine is neither for Evolution nor against Evolution. We as a Church take no position on the subject. However the Church does allow all members their own opinions on the subject of Evolution. The Church also take no position on the Pythagorean Theorem, but I am willing to bet that most members accept it as accurate.

[DBMormon]

LDS doctrine is neither for Evolution nor against Evolution. We as a Church take no position on the subject. However the Church does allow all members their own opinions on the subject of Evolution. The Church also take no position on the Pythagorean Theorem, but I am willing to bet that most members accept it as accurate.

Some church leaders pushed their opinions as doctrine.... that is the issue . That also looked down upon others who took a different stand

Edited March 28, 2013 by DBMormon

[CASteinman]

Some church leaders pushed their opinions as doctrine

It is doctrine. Anything that is taught is doctrine.

That also looked down upon others who took a different stand

That is the real issue.

[thesometimesaint]

Some church leaders pushed their opinions as doctrine.... that is the issue . That also looked down upon others who took a different stand

A common occurrence even on this MB.

[rongo]

The Proclamation on the Family solemnly warns the entire world -- not just members of the LDS Church -- that failure to uphold the sacnctity of the traditional family (husband, wife, children), as plainly and unambiguously set forth within the text of proclamation itself, will bring about the dreadful tribulations and cataclysmic destructions of the last days that have been prophesied by many prophets both ancient and modern. Therefore, the Church likely took up the unpopular cause of supporting Proposition 8, against civil gay marriage in California, in the hope of stemming the tide of destruction that awaits the world if its inhabitants willfully violate the will of the Lord as declared by his living prophets. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

Kind of a neat personal story on this score. I remember distinctly when the PoF came out (just before April Conference in 1995). My mission president, Charles Dahlquist, immediately printed glossy translations in German for us to use. While knocking on doors, a very tall man (ca. 6' 8') screamed in rage at us that we hated gays (Schwule), and to get out of there. I asked him if we could come in and "defend ourselves" from his over-the-top barrage (Dürfen wir hineinkommen und uns verteidigen?), and surprisingly, he abruptly changed and told us to come in. He calmed down, apologized for his blow-up, and explained that he was an actor, that he was gay, and that many of his close friends and associates were gay. I asked him if he believed in God, and he did (which surprised me a little, at that time). I explained that we don't hate gays (love the sinner, hate the sin, etc.), but that living a lifestyle in opposition to God's commandments would cause suffering in this life and eternal consequences in the next one. He said that he didn't believe that God has a stance on homosexuality, and I told him that we can't both be right. Either God does have a stance, or He doesn't, but both beliefs can't be right. One of them is wrong.

I asked him if he believed that it is possible to find out what God actually thinks about this, independent of other people's opinions and beliefs. He didn't know what to do with that (probably hadn't thought about it before), and we told him that our central message is that God's Church has been restored in our day with Twelve Apostles led by Christ, just like in former days. We gave him one of our PoFs, and read the second to last paragraph (the one testifying that calamaties foretold by ancient and modern prophets will fall upon individuals, communities, and nations that violate God's law of chastity), and we added our testimony. We told him that we were taking the train in a couple of days to go to Hamburg and hear the Twelve Apostles in our day, and invited him to meet us at the train station and come with us.

We waited for over an hour, until we absolutely had to leave before we would be late. We weren't shocked at all that he didn't show up ---- it would have been really extraordinary if he had. Just as we were about to go to the right track and get on our train, he came running up to us. Out of breath, he told us that he had called all morning, but we hadn't answered (we were at the train station waiting for him). He apologized profusely, because he was going to come with us, but he had just gotten an emergency call and had to replace a big part in an upcoming production of Cyrano de Bergerac on short notice.

Although he didn't come with us, his sincere willingness means as much to me as if he had. Unfortunately, we were both double-transferred at General Conference, so that was the end of the story as far as we were concerned. We had a lot of good prospects going at the time, too, but that's how it goes.

[Calm]

The keep it to yourself and tow the line is an approach a cult would use.

It does not help in the discussion to paint someone who disagrees with you in such an overdramatic attack, misrepresenting what the other says. You are the one who wants to promote discussion and yet this is what you do?

Was Mary wrong for doing what she did?

Luke2:19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

Edited March 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

It is doctrine. Anything that is taught is doctrine.

Anything taught is not doctrine at least not true doctrine as according to Elder Neal Anderson, True Doctrine is what is taught and agreed on by all 15 men.

[CASteinman]

Anything taught is not doctrine at least not true doctrine as according to Elder Neal Anderson, True Doctrine is what is taught and agreed on by all 15 men.

It is all doctrine. Whether it is doctrine or not, does not depend upon whether it is true or not. (The reverse statement about whether it is true or not is also valid but harder to picture).

What Neil Anderson spoke of was the "Doctrine of the Church". He did not declare that the only true doctrine was what was taught and agreed to by all 15 men. That would be contrary to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and I don't think he would do that.

I think what you are referring to is approved official doctrine. Which is not the same thing as saying that the opinions of individual GA's is not True Doctrine.

However, it is not approved official doctrine of the Church.

[USU78]

Are you suggesting that unless it was specifically called 'homosexuality' it did not exist? I can assure you homosexuality did exist in ancient times, but they had other terms for it--as you can see from the Bible.

Remember, though, that the term "homosexual" as a subcategory of humans is a XIXth Century construct. It simply didn't exist before that time. People spoke in terms of behaviors, not that people were to be divided into "hetero-" and "homo-" sexual, as though it were a divide as clear-cut as male/female. You either engaged in a behavior, or you did not. Why you did wasn't an interesting question.

[ERayR]

LDS doctrine is neither for Evolution nor against Evolution. We as a Church take no position on the subject. However the Church does allow all members their own opinions on the subject of Evolution. The Church also take no position on the Pythagorean Theorem, but I am willing to bet that most members accept it as accurate.

IMNSHO it would be improper for me to expound my views on evolution over the pulpit or even in High Priests Group meeting.

[ERayR]

That also looked down upon others who took a different stand

My view from Olympus is breath taking. To bad all of you can't come on up.

[cinepro]

The Church also take no position on the Pythagorean Theorem, but I am willing to bet that most members accept it as accurate.

If Church publications said the same thing about the Pythagorean Theorem as they do about Evolution, most members might not.

Edited March 28, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

It would be awesome to read a story like this one day:

When your math teacher says the facts point to the Pythagorean Theorem, what do you say?

“Do you believe in God?”

“Yes,” I stammered. I couldn’t believe it. Here I was sitting in front of four of my best friends and my high school math teacher, and not one of them believed in God.

“But what about the Pythagorean Theorem?” my friends asked.

My math teacher, who had a reputation for being stubborn and persistent, turned his head momentarily from his papers and said: “Now, let’s be logical here. Look at the facts. Where does the evidence point?”

I was tongue-tied. I have known the Church is true since I was very young. I felt it was true. However, at the same time, logic and reason were driving forces in my life.

As I sat there, trying to come up with an answer to their questions, the awkward silence gave them satisfaction. They thought I had hit a dead end in my reasoning, as they expected I would. Thinking of no arguments to counter their position, I silently said a quick prayer, pleading with God to direct my words toward these five people. Within seconds a thought crossed my mind: “It is not you who converts, but the Spirit.”

Upon hearing those simple words, I began to share my testimony with my friends. I said, “I know there is a God, and He has a Son who created the world and saved us all. Whether or not we have all the answers now doesn’t discredit the fact that there is a God.God works line upon line and precept upon precept. Until we prove our faith, God will not reveal more to us.”

I finished by confirming my testimony of the Church and its leaders, forgetting to even address the original questions posed.

After I finished, they all sat in silence, staring at me. I could feel my face getting hot. Just then, the bell rang. I grabbed my bag, thankful for this escape route, and headed for the door. As I opened the door, my math teacher swung his chair around and called my name.

I turned, anticipating a rebuttal and, to my shock, found a sincere face staring back at me. “Thank you,” he said.

My simple testimony had conveyed more convincing truth than any logical debate could have. I know that I did not dissolve their accusations and criticisms that day, but the Holy Spirit did.

https://www.lds.org/...lution?lang=eng

Yes, the Church's attitude towards evolution is just like its attitude towards the Pythagorean Theorem

Edited March 28, 2013 by cinepro

[cursor]

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe how I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.” --Joseph Smith

I like it. The more full quote, however, is:

"Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking

and believing as

I please. It feels

as

good not to be trammelled.

It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

[italics added to illustrate varied text from the 'rockpond' quote]

April 1843

[thesometimesaint]

IMNSHO it would be improper for me to expound my views on evolution over the pulpit or even in High Priests Group meeting.

Mine too, just as it would be for me to claim it is a heresy over the pulpit, or even in a High Priest Group meeting.

[awyatt]

But, that same constitution also requires that we provide legal recognition to the marriages of our homosexual citizens.

Funny that generations past never noted such a "requirement" -- even the generation that wrote the document. How could they have missed something so obvious and overt in the very words they wrote? (Gasp!)

-Allen

[rockpond]

Funny that generations past never noted such a "requirement" -- even the generation that wrote the document. How could they have missed something so obvious and overt in the very words they wrote? (Gasp!)

-Allen

They didn't miss anything. They didn't write specifically about marriage. I was referring to equal protection, due process, and freedom of religion.

Edited March 28, 2013 by rockpond