Sleeping With The Enemy

[Scott Lloyd]

Good for you! I guess those of us who aren't blessed with your greater light and knowledge will have to withdraw from the world completely. Or maybe, our "betters" could give us an understanding of the question to allow us to have your peace of mind.

I didn't characterize it as "greater light and knowledge." I do, though, regard it as common sense that precludes a strange and absurdly literalistic reading of the temple recommend question under discussion here.

 

I've never before regarded common sense as being a gift of the Spirit, but perhaps it is.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Nofear]

Because I understand the question in the temple recommend interview and its intent, I don't have to bind myself to an absurdly literalistic interpretation of said question. Ergo, my conscience is clear on that point. Problem averted.

 

Kind of like when asked if there is anything in your behavior which is out of harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Of course there is, plenty." But the question is more along the lines of grossly out of line (e.g. beating your children or spouse, selling narcotics, peddling mlm's schemes , etc.).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thank you for the welcome, Brother!

And to be clear, we have current recommends and have received our endowments. In all honesty, we're not really sure what to make of the temple. However, what we are sure of is that the temple has deep and enduring significance to our fellow saints and so we would never want to desecrate it by entering into the temple unworthily.

What to make of the Temple, is that it is where we make covenants, and that it is the most sacred place on earth, and a place to learn so much. Also as the Bible dictionary. "That Only the home can compare with the Temple with sacredness with the Temple". When I attended the dedication of the Atlanta in 1983 (if memory serves) I had an experience that left me in tears of joy. In the final verse of "The Spirit of God like a fire is burning", the heavens seemed to open and the choir of heaven began to sing, in such away I had to look behind me to see if from where the overpowering chorus was coming from, even my 8 year old child was weeping. A few years later while witnessing "Baptism for the dead" a close friend tole me of a story where when he was doing the same that when a sisters name was called during the baptism, that she appeared in the spirit. When I was doing conformations after such baptisms, I had amazing feeling with some of the youth, though I felt some would not be valiant later in life...but with all whom I had an overpowering felling, all went n to serve missions, male and female.

[mormonnewb]

I didn't characterize it as "greater light and knowledge." I do, though, regard it as common sense that precludes a strange and absurdly literalistic reading of the temple recommend question under discussion here.

 

I've never before regarded common sense as being a gift of the Spirit, but perhaps it is.

As discussed in this very thread, that "strange and absurdly literalistic reading" is currently being used to impose Church disciple against a sister. So if a man who has been called as bishop could come to such a "ridiculous" conclusion, then you'll have to excuse my wife and I for being so dim-witted.

[Scott Lloyd]

As discussed in this very thread, that "strange and absurdly literalistic reading" is currently being used to impose Church disciple against a sister. So if a man who has been called as bishop could come to such a "ridiculous" conclusion, then you'll have to excuse my wife and I for being so dim-witted.

Whether or not that bishop is right or wrong in his action, there is an immense leap from the question of voicing public support for the redefinition of marriage to concluding that one can't vote, shop at a typical store, work for an employer, drive a car or be tax-exempt without violating the temple recommend requirement.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

As discussed in this very thread, that "strange and absurdly literalistic reading" is currently being used to impose Church disciple against a sister. So if a man who has been called as bishop could come to such a "ridiculous" conclusion, then you'll have to excuse my wife and I for being so dim-witted.

 

Whether or not that bishop is right or wrong in his action, there is an immense leap from the question of voicing public support for the redefinition of marriage to concluding that one can't vote, shop at a typical store, work for an employer, drive a car or be tax-exempt without violating the temple recommend requirement.

I think it is one thing to oppose the Church on a strictly political basis, and another to oppose the Church on a doctrinal basis. I think some people can keep the political and covenantal apart.

For example, as much as I oppose it, I think a member can support SS”M” on political reasoning alone in good (but very misguided) faith, while in good conscience and practice thoroughly support the doctrine and covenant of marriage as the Church defines and practices it. I don’t think many people can do that, but I think some can, and they can answer “No” to question #7 on that basis.

I also think that a person cannot answer “No” to that question if in his political life he attacks or undermines the Church or her doctrine, or becomes a member of or contributor to an organization whose platform (or helps individuals whose cause) he knows targets and undermines the Church, her doctrine, or the freedom of religious expression and practice for any faith group. Or if he seeks to exercsie his political options while denying the Church to do the same.

To me, it still comes down to a person being able to answer the question honestly, and perhaps “Yes” is the best course of action to take for the time being.

[jkwilliams]

According to some people, my wife sleeps with the enemy every night.

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you for the welcome, Brother!

And to be clear, we have current recommends and have received our endowments. In all honesty, we're not really sure what to make of the temple. However, what we are sure of is that the temple has deep and enduring significance to our fellow saints and so we would never want to desecrate it by entering into the temple unworthily.

 

The Temple is different than our regular Church meetings. I have no way of knowing how many times you've been. But the more times you go the more sure you'll be of it.

 

No one has to be perfect to go to the Temple. If that were a requirement none, other that Christ, would be able to go. If you have any questions about worthiness the best persons to ask is your Bishop, and Stake President.

[slamarwi]

That is a bishop that should be disciplined/corrected by his stake president toute de suite. He is in error.

I guess it depends on what those five words were. I can think of five words that could and probably would warrant review for disciplinary action if they were public... but they're not appropriate for this site.

[emarkp]

 

If you oppose the doctrine and practice of the Church, why would you want a temple recommend?

LOL!

 

It was a serious question. Throwing aside the absurdist definitions of "support", you (and she) stand in opposition to the Family Proclamation, which was presented as the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency in unison, in writing. The teaching has been repeatedly asserted and supported by ancient and modern revelation.

Why would you let a little coffee Facebook post keep you out of the temple? If allegiance to a false principle is so important, then why would you want to be in the temple?

Edited February 25, 2014 by emarkp

[mormonnewb]

It was a serious question. Throwing aside the absurdist definitions of "support", you (and she) stand in opposition to the Family Proclamation, which was presented as the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency in unison, in writing. The teaching has been repeatedly asserted and supported by ancient and modern revelation.

Why would you let a little coffee Facebook post keep you out of the temple? If allegiance to a false principle is so important, then why would you want to be in the temple?

I wasn't familiar with the temple recommend question that reads, "Do you agree with EVERY doctrine of the Church?" Is there a 15th question that I'm missing?

That being said, I don't need to agree 100% with the Church to find great meaning and joy in it. Just as I don't agree with my wife 100% of the time, but still find value in our relationship.

In fact, I can't think of a single person/group that I agree with on every issue. So should I choose not to associate with anyone or anything?

As for the "false principle," I'm very comfortable with the side of history on which I stand.

[emarkp]

There is a difference between not agreeing and openly opposing. Are you intentionally blurring those lines?

[BCSpace]

This must be an interesting discussion, since no one seems to be able to agree on what is and what is not the doctrine of the church

 

The Church does (see my siggy) and I've never met an active Mormon in person who doesn't know the Church's position on doctrine.

[BCSpace]

I fear no censure. If the mods strike me down I will become more powerful then they can possibly imagine.

I know you preach your personal political philosophy in church. You have said that before. This makes me sad.

 

Then start a thread.  I 'preach' no philosophy in Church that the Church doesn't already agree with doctrinally.

[The Nehor]

Then start a thread.  I 'preach' no philosophy in Church that the Church doesn't already agree with doctrinally.

 

Despite the fact they will not say that and in fact continually make clear their neutrality on the issue.

[BCSpace]

Despite the fact they will not say that and in fact continually make clear their neutrality on the issue.

 

Unfortunately for you, they also deny no doctrine that I have pointed out. Recall that the Church publically backed up that Sandy Stake President not too long ago...

Edited February 25, 2014 by BCSpace

[The Nehor]

Unfortunately for you, they also deny no doctrine that I have pointed out. Recall that the Church publically backed up that Sandy Stake President not too long ago...

 

No, they didn't. They just said that the words of a stake president are not binding on the whole church and made it clear that was a general statement and that they would not comment on the speech itself.

 

In fact I would be very surprised if the Stake President did not receive a call from a General Authority telling him to knock it off. I am personally aware of that happening in one less well-publicized case.

 

If your idea of publicly backing is not publicly disavowing (probably to avoid ruining his ability to run the stake) then yes, they backed him. That is not the general definition.

Edited February 25, 2014 by The Nehor

[BCSpace]

No, they didn't. They just said that the words of a stake president are not binding on the whole church and made it clear that was a general statement and that they would not comment on the speech itself.

 

Never implied any different.  However, notice that the Church did not take issue with the speech nor deny any doctrines.  Notice how it backs up my earlier statement here that Stake Presidents have a lot of leeway.

 

When you're ready to debate me on the issues that you have misrepresented me on, let me know.  Start a thread so you don't derail this one.

Edited February 25, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I wasn't familiar with the temple recommend question that reads, "Do you agree with EVERY doctrine of the Church?" Is there a 15th question that I'm missing?

That being said, I don't need to agree 100% with the Church to find great meaning and joy in it. Just as I don't agree with my wife 100% of the time, but still find value in our relationship.

 

That is correct.  One just can't "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if one wants to honestly get a TR.  As I've said before, we should applaud the honesty of the person in question in the OP.  The Church is doctrinally opposed to SSM.  The Church doesn't have to be politically involved for one to run afoul of this position.

[mormonnewb]

There is a difference between not agreeing and openly opposing. Are you intentionally blurring those lines?

 

 

Deleted.

Edited February 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

That is correct.  One just can't "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if one wants to honestly get a TR.  As I've said before, we should applaud the honesty of the person in question in the OP.  The Church is doctrinally opposed to SSM.  The Church doesn't have to be politically involved for one to run afoul of this position.

 

Deleted.

Edited February 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[emarkp]

Then be honest in your opposition to the TR interview, and see what happens. I mean that seriously, not as a threat or taunt.

[mormonnewb]

Then be honest in your opposition to the TR interview, and see what happens. I mean that seriously, not as a threat or taunt.

 

Fair enough.  Of course, that's assuming that my beloved bishop makes it all the way down the 7th question without throwing up his hands in frustration

[CV75]

Throwing aside the absurdist definitions of "support", you (and she) stand in opposition to the Family Proclamation, which was presented as the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency in unison, in writing. The teaching has been repeatedly asserted and supported by ancient and modern revelation.

This is where it can get a bit dicey. While I believe opposition to SS"M" reflects the aims of the Family Proclamation, I cannot rightly say that those who don't oppose SS"M", or even support it, oppose the aims of the Family Proclamation. Ther can be non-religious, non-covenantal considerations in supporting it. In my opinion, only if someone believes he is against the aims of the Family Proclamation (or other doctrines on marriage), and sees his role in supporting SS"M" and the groups that support it as striving against opur doctrines, would he be lying if he answers the question "No."

[Gray]

My SP knows I'm in favor of gay marriage and isn't bothered at all by it. We have a great SP, though.