cinepro Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 His statement that the "bumper sticker" question, "What would Jesus do?," does not always yield a popular answer. I can only imagine the following exchange on Jeopardy:(Contestant Bill) I'll take "Cityscapes" for 800 Alex...(Alex Trebeck) Cityscapes for 800. The answer is "Build a mall"(Contestant Bill Buzzes In)(Contestant Bill) Is it "What would Jesus do?"(Alex Trebeck) That's it for $800 Bill. The board is still yours... 1
JLHPROF Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I hope all of you take "courage" in condemning a hated minority. That's certainly who Jesus spent His ministry condemning -- the prostitutes, the lepers, the tax collectors, right? What an irony that the people who turned Him over to the Romans were actually the "righteous." Is it possibly because He did not share their disdain for the sinners? Or maybe it's because they focused on the sins of others and ignore the planks in their own eyes? Or perhaps, it's because they exalted themselves when they should have been in repentance for their sins? Who is being condemning? It's true Elder Holland spoke out against a specific way of thinking, one that isn't really scriptural. Are we supposed to support people with that viewpoint in their error? Not condemning, but not condoning, just like Christ. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 For one the woman taken in adultery. Pres. Holland told us to condemn the woman taken in adultery?If anything, in this day and age, it's getting so the "hated minority" are those who still profess that adultery is wrong. 3
Mystery Meat Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I am very confused. Did Elder Holland give two different talks? What exactly did Elder Holland say that was objectionable? I didn't hear it. So unless someone can point it out to me I am just going to chalk this up to someone looking for offense.
mormonnewb Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) Who is being condemning? It's true Elder Holland spoke out against a specific way of thinking, one that isn't really scriptural. Are we supposed to support people with that viewpoint in their error? Not condemning, but not condoning, just like Christ.Here we go again: As Mormons, we tend to think that we can mask bigotry with a smile. We "smiled" at blacks while keeping them out of our temples. We didn't spit at little girls trying to go to school. We didn't burn crosses on people's lawns. We were nice and polite. Yet, not a week goes by that someone doesn't ask me, "Why did you join that racist church?"Likewise, we are instructed to "smile" at gays while working actively to deny them the joys of marriage. We don't hold signs reading that God hates them. We don't call them bad names. And yet, long after OD3, people will be asking our grandkids, "How do you belong to that homophobic church?"We are truly a stiff-necked people. Edited April 5, 2014 by mormonnewb
bluebell Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Here we go again: As Mormons, we tend to think that we can mask bigotry with a smile. We "smiled" at blacks while keeping them out of our temples. We didn't spit at little girls trying to go to school. We didn't burn crosses on people's lawns. We were nice and polite. Yet, not a week goes by that someone doesn't ask me, "Why did you join that racist church?"Likewise, we are instructed to "smile" at gays while working actively to deny them the joys of marriage. We don't hold sings saying that God hates them. We don't call them bad names. And yet, long after OD3, people will be asking our grand kids, "How do you belong to that homophobic church?"We are truly a stiff-necked people. So, this has nothing to do with anything that Elder Holland actually said. You are just condemning him (and all who liked his talk) because he doesn't agree with you about SSM? Mormonweb is derailing the intent of this thread and has been removed. Everyone needs to get back to respectfully discussing the conference talks. 3
Teancum Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 It certainly was a good talk that enforced in the early part the persecution complex the Church has. But I still liked it other than his I know the Church is true better than I know I am standing here before you. But that is just me. I don't like such hyperbole. I guess he may really know if he has talked to Jesus face to face. But if not I doubt he knows it that certain.
cinepro Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 If anything, in this day and age, it's getting so the "hated minority" are those who still profess that adultery is wrong. Stop the insanity! I repeat, this is a thread to discuss the talks. Derailers will be removed. 3
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I have no problem with adultery being a major sin. I do have a problem with stoning a person to death because of it.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 It certainly was a good talk that enforced in the early part the persecution complex the Church has. But I still liked it other than his I know the Church is true better than I know I am standing here before you. But that is just me. I don't like such hyperbole. I guess he may really know if he has talked to Jesus face to face. But if not I doubt he knows it that certain.I think he knows how well he knows better than you know how well he knows. I'm inclined to go with him on this. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I have no problem with adultery being a major sin. I do have a problem with stoning a person to death because of it.Yeah. If anybody on this thread has advocated stoning a person to death for adultery, I disagree with him or her.
Mystery Meat Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I have no problem with adultery being a major sin. I do have a problem with stoning a person to death because of it. How is this relevant to Elder Holland's talk?
Tacenda Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm loving the inbetween conference stories, especially the family who forgave the Samoan (?) who killed their mother while driving stoned. Then seeing how it changed his and his family's lives. 4
bluebell Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) I think he knows how well he knows better than you know how well he knows. I'm inclined to go with him on this. It's obviously very easy to get into the frame of mind of seeing the world, not as it actually is, but as we are. If it weren't easy, that probably wouldn't be such a popular saying. And so i get why some people seem to imply that if they can't know for certain that the church is true without seeing Christ, then no one can. But I'm inclined to agree with you, in that if someone says they know something, we should probably take them at their word (not that we can't disagree with them, but rather, that we can't suggest they aren't being sincere or honest or accurate in explaining how they actually think, feel, or believe). Edited April 5, 2014 by bluebell 1
cinepro Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Yeah. If anybody on this thread has advocated stoning a person to death for adultery, I disagree with him or her. Hypothetically speaking, if Moses were in this thread, would you still feel the same?
Teancum Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I think he knows how well he knows better than you know how well he knows. I'm inclined to go with him on this. Yes of course. I am not surprised by your position. So how about he tells us HOW he knows what he testified better than he knows he is standing before us. It can't be simply a personal testimony by the spirit can it. See Alma 32. Is he claiming a perfect knowledge and no longer needs to have faith? So sure count me the skeptic. I wonder where the practice os bearing testimony as I know.... then go down the checklist.... started in the LDS Church.
Teancum Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) It's obviously very easy to get into the frame of mind of seeing the world, not as it actually is, but as we are. If it weren't easy, that probably wouldn't be such a popular saying. And so i get why some people seem to imply that if they can't know for certain that the church is true without seeing Christ, then no one can. But I'm inclined to agree with you, in that if someone says they know something, we should probably take them at their word (not that we can't disagree with them, but rather, that we can't suggest they aren't being sincere or honest or accurate in explaining how they actually think, feel, or believe).Does this apply to saying I know about anything? So if I say I know Santa Clause is real then should you not question me? There was a time I would have said that. I was 5 years old then but hey... And I do not question that Elder Holland is very sincere and believes what he said. Edited April 5, 2014 by Teancum
Mystery Meat Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Yes of course. I am not surprised by your position. So how about he tells us HOW he knows what he testified better than he knows he is standing before us. It can't be simply a personal testimony by the spirit can it. See Alma 32. Is he claiming a perfect knowledge and no longer needs to have faith? So sure count me the skeptic. I wonder where the practice os bearing testimony as I know.... then go down the checklist.... started in the LDS Church. What if he was instructed not to tell how he knows? What if it was sacred? Would it make a difference? Not with the skeptics and doubters I know. One recently told me that if a general authority said they had such a divine experience then they are just lying. Despite some disagreement on this board there really are things too sacred to share. Not casting pearls before swine comes to mind as well. You get to chose of course who you believe. 1
Teancum Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 What if he was instructed not to tell how he knows? What if it was sacred? Would it make a difference? Not with the skeptics and doubters I know. One recently told me that if a general authority said they had such a divine experience then they are just lying. Despite some disagreement on this board there really are things too sacred to share. Not casting pearls before swine comes to mind as well. You get to chose of course who you believe. You could be right. Maybe it is too sacred to tell. Though the early leaders of the Church never felt such. But sometimes it seems coy to me to imply they have had such an experience but that "certain things are too sacred to relate."
Mystery Meat Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 You could be right. Maybe it is too sacred to tell. Though the early leaders of the Church never felt such. But sometimes it seems coy to me to imply they have had such an experience but that "certain things are too sacred to relate." I don't know that Elder Holland had such an experience, but neither do you. And I suppose the Lord can command people to share and not share such experience as He sees fit. 1
why me Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) Here we go again: As Mormons, we tend to think that we can mask bigotry with a smile. We "smiled" at blacks while keeping them out of our temples. We didn't spit at little girls trying to go to school. We didn't burn crosses on people's lawns. We were nice and polite. Yet, not a week goes by that someone doesn't ask me, "Why did you join that racist church?"Likewise, we are instructed to "smile" at gays while working actively to deny them the joys of marriage. We don't hold signs reading that God hates them. We don't call them bad names. And yet, long after OD3, people will be asking our grandkids, "How do you belong to that homophobic church?"We are truly a stiff-necked people.This is rather passive aggressive. And I think that you are being unfair. I have been a member during the time when african americans couldn't hold the priesthood. I don't remember anyone smiling at it. But I do remember hearing people speaking about it, including myself. And some of us knew african members who were in our wards and how they were treated well as equals in the pews. And yes, we all felt bad that they couldn't hold the priesthood and what joy was felt when they got the priesthood. My hometeaching companion was from Nigeria and I remember how happy he was that he got the priesthood and how he married a white sister. And had children. You are being unfair. But no one was smiling at him during that time he couldn't have the priesthood. Edited April 5, 2014 by why me
Teancum Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I don't know that Elder Holland had such an experience, but neither do you. And I suppose the Lord can command people to share and not share such experience as He sees fit. Yep. Pretty convienient that to.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Yes of course. I am not surprised by your position. So how about he tells us HOW he knows what he testified better than he knows he is standing before us.How about you respect his decision to share spiritual experiences when and how he sees fit? It can't be simply a personal testimony by the spirit can it. See Alma 32. Is he claiming a perfect knowledge and no longer needs to have faith? Perhaps. So sure count me the skeptic. So long as you recognize your skepticism is not binding on anyone else. I wonder where the practice os bearing testimony as I know.... then go down the checklist.... started in the LDS Church. Regardless, neither you nor anyone else is in a position to deny such expressions.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) You could be right. Maybe it is too sacred to tell. Though the early leaders of the Church never felt such. If any had spiritual experiences that they did not feel at liberty to share, there would no way for you to know that, would there? So you are in no position to say "the early leaders of the Church never felt such. But sometimes it seems coy to me to imply they have had such an experience but that "certain things are too sacred to relate." I on the other hand see it as an eagerness to share good news while at the same time maintaining integrity. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. Edited April 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
why me Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Likewise, we are instructed to "smile" at gays while working actively to deny them the joys of marriage. We don't hold signs reading that God hates them. We don't call them bad names. And yet, long after OD3, people will be asking our grandkids, "How do you belong to that homophobic church?"We are truly a stiff-necked people.Who told us to smile at gays while actively working to deny them the joys of marriage? What mormons are doing is what god believes he wants us to do. But no one is smiling at gays with mock smiles. But our mormons wrong? I have just listened to the BBC speak about the problem the anglican church now has since england and wales will have same sex marriage. The church of england must be against it because if it supported SSM, the anglican church in africa would break away from it. Are african christians homophobic or are they just following their conscience? You seem to see it all through for and against eyes. This is not true for most of us. We do see it as god's will though. And with that fact you can disagree or agree.
Recommended Posts