Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[carbon dioxide]

The Church is monitoring 99.9% of LDS members is absurd.  They don't have the technology and man power to do it.  Most likely these people are on the far fringes of the membership and that is why they get the attention.  However the Church needs to come out and state clearly that these are exceptions and bishops are not out to monitor the posts their ward members make.  The Church wants to stay as far away from being even remotely comparible to to the NSA unless it is the goal of the Church to completely ruin missionary work in the USA.  Nobody is going to want to join the Church if there is any reputation that the Church will spy on them.

[sethpayne]

The Church is monitoring 99.9% of LDS members is absurd.  They don't have the technology and man power to do it.  Most likely these people are on the far fringes of the membership and that is why they get the attention.  However the Church needs to come out and state clearly that these are exceptions and bishops are not out to monitor the posts their ward members make.  The Church wants to stay as far away from being even remotely comparible to to the NSA unless it is the goal of the Church to completely ruin missionary work in the USA.  Nobody is going to want to join the Church if there is any reputation that the Church will spy on them.

 

I think you are probably right.

 

But then again, I have a friend in Utah County who had her temple recommend taken by her Bishop because she posted that viral gay marriage proposal video (Utah Home Depot?) on her FB wall.

[cdowis]

Always, without exception?  http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/reviews-elder-statesman-a-biography-of-j-reuben-clark/

 

Yes, I follow the prophets.  I also understand the difference between an expression of personal opinion,  and a prophetic, authorized statement by the church presidency and Q12.

 

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how our words and beliefs are being distorted and trashed by the naysayers.  It is really tiresome.

 

You have been here long enough to know  ==>> don't waste our time with garbage like this, my friend.  

Edited June 20, 2014 by cdowis

[Duncan]

CFR please....

 

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/index.aspx

 

the Canadian one is hard to navigate, but it's on there somewhere!

[Duncan]

I think you are probably right.

 

But then again, I have a friend in Utah County who had her temple recommend taken by her Bishop because she posted that viral gay marriage proposal video (Utah Home Depot?) on her FB wall.

 

 

man oh man! I have sent a few scathing emails to the Bishop, stake and mission president about various matters-even had an interview with the Stake Pres. and they didn't deny me anything! 

[sethpayne]

Yes, I follow the prophets.  I also understand the difference between an expression of personal opinion,  and a prophetic, authorized statement by the church presidency and Q12.

 

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how our words and beliefs are being distorted and trashed by the naysayers.  It is really tiresome.

 

You have been here long enough to know  ==>> don't waste our time with garbage like this, my friend.  

 

Can you describe what is opinion and what is prophetic utterance?  How, specifically, do you differentiate between the two?  Serious question.  

[sethpayne]

man oh man! I have sent a few scathing emails to the Bishop, stake and mission president about various matters-even had an interview with the Stake Pres. and they didn't deny me anything! 

 

Yeah.  It seems hit or miss.  Some (lots, probably) local leaders are Pope Francis and some -- in the most extreme and rare of cases -- are akin to Fred Phelps.

[Avatar4321]

I find this funny:

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman

Umm, what do you think those two websites are for? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be private but I could be wrong.

 

It's kind of funny. The Lord knows even our thoughts and this guy is shocked that we are accountable for what we say online.

 

It occurs to me that if you don't want to face Church discipline, you should comply with doctrine.

[cdowis]

Can you describe what is opinion and what is prophetic utterance?  How, specifically, do you differentiate between the two?  Serious question.  

Serious answer.

 

With over 2000 posts in this forum, you already have gotten an answer. There have been multiple threads on the subject, I have already addressed that issue many times.  You just want to show how cute and clever you can be, and pretend to be ignorant on the subject.  

 

No thanks.  I have no interest in getting into one of your "discussions".

 

This and Nazis = removal.

[Avatar4321]

Christ also said that if we even think about adultury we've commited the sin. But why are our Bishops Area Authorities and even Apostles usurping Gods proper place in judgment?

 

If God doesnt strike us down who gave them the right to?

 

Um God did. When He made them judges...

[guerreiro9]

I really hate to derail this thread, and to be honest I don't think you or I will come to much agreement on this subject, but nonetheless here are my responses:

 

Every other human characteristic behaves in this manner?  I don't believe that's correct.  Left-handedness was widely discouraged in previous generations.  Did that change the percentages?

 

Let's look at your example of Left-handedness.  Let us suppose that you have a predisposition to be left-handed (the cause of which is still debated by the way), but grew up in a society where it is strongly discouraged.  Because of this discouragement you learn to do everything with your right hand (eat, write, throw a ball, everything).  I would ask the question "Are you still left-handed?"  I would answer the question no.  Your right hand is much more dominant and capable, the most you can say is that had you grown up in a society that did not discourage left-handedness so strongly it probably would have been your dominant hand.

 

Per the article, this is an initiation rite with religious overtones.  Further, the article states that the men involved go on to marry women and become fathers.  A ritualized sexual behavior (however abhorrent it might seem to us) does not indicate that they have become homosexual nor that they are choosing a homosexual lifestyle.  It has no bearing on the percentage of people born homosexual nor does the article show an increase in homosexuality within the Melanesian society, initiation rites aside.

 

It seems you have done a cursory skimming of the article and may need to read the article again.  While the homosexual behavior was indeed religious in nature, and was used for initiation, the practice was expected to continue daily for years.

 

Young men were expected to receive semen daily either orally or anally, and it was presumed to be needed for their development into manhood.  Once manhood was reached they were expected to marry and produce offspring, but they were also expected to now take on the role of semen donor to the young members of the tribe.

 

Men of the tribe were expected to engage in homosexual acts daily for the vast majority of their life.  Notice as well that because they had no concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as we think of it, these homosexual acts were in no way an impediment to engaging in heterosexual ones.  Refusing to engage in heterosexual sex would have been just as unthinkable as refusing to engage in homosexual sex.

 

You cannot define whether or not these men are "homosexuals"  (whatever your specific definition of that word is).  The most you can say is that had they been born in a different culture (modern Western for example) the larger majority of them would probably not have engaged in homosexual acts.  Nonetheless rockpond, if you had been born into one of these Melanesian tribes you would have engaged in homosexual acts daily and considered it just as natural and attractive as whatever you currently find sexually attractive.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited June 20, 2014 by guerreiro9

[why me]

They also made it obvious IMO that they would present accommodations from the Church as concessions, making it difficult for leadership to interact in positive ways with them without it being made to appear they were agreeing with or at least okay OW's goals and actions. The Church would not be able to control the narrative of what meeting with them would mean. No trust that it wouldn't be spun has been established over the existence of the organization.

For example, if they had let women attend PHsession, that would be interpreted as agreeing that the women were prospective elders. Another example, the second protest on Temple Square they were apparently met before they came on the square and asked not to enter. They went ahead anyway. Later it was spun by Kelly IIRC that the Church leadership was okay with them being on the square since they weren't "asked" to leave...her version of being asked to leave was being escorted off the property by security. Given the big to do about the small maintenance truck blocking the doors the first time they protested, can you imagine what would have happened with pictures of security escorting them off grounds? The Church was in a no win situation, but I find it remarkable anyone had the nerve to say they hadn't been asked to leave given the letter asking them not to do it and the in person refusal which they ignored.

In this blog post the writer claims that according to pew research in 2013, 8 percent of the lds women population supported the idea of women receiving the priesthood.

 

http://www.bustle.com/articles/27960-ordain-womens-kate-kelly-fights-for-mormon-womens-rights-promptly-faces-excommunication

 

She also claims that she is not a protester or activist

 

“We’re not activists. We’re not protesters,” Kelly told Reuters. ”We’re people on the inside. We are investing in an institution … not critiquing it to tear it down,”

 

I think that she is very misleading in this statement. Of course, they are activists and protesters but perhaps she shied away from describing her and her organization this way for fear that active mormon women and men would not join the movement. And she is critiquing the church for being patriarchal and fostering inequality between women and men,

 

The OW mission statement also claims that god is both male and female. I have never heard the church claim such a thing but then again I am not an active member either and so maybe I missed it somewhere. But this does sound incorrect.

 

Regardless of how she attempted to portray her organization as non-activist etc she couldn't leave out radical feminist rhetoric in her statements and mission statement because this is what has shaped her world outlook.

Edited June 20, 2014 by why me

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps we should start stockpiling rocks as well. Would someone explain why this isn't turning into a PR nightmare again, didn't quite understand the response.

 

Because "“Every time you kick ‘Mormonism’ you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.” - Brigham Young

 

The world is going to be opposed to us. Let us be humble and seek the Lord's will no matter what others may do or say. Let's call people who need to repent to repentance. Let's repent of what we need to repent of.

 

We need the power of the Priesthood and that only comes through the principles of righteousness.

[rockpond]

Serious answer.

 

With over 2000 posts in this forum, you already have gotten an answer. There have been multiple threads on the subject, I have already addressed that issue many times.  You just want to show how cute and clever you can be, and pretend to be ignorant on the subject.  

 

No thanks.  I have no interest in getting into one of your "discussions".

 

The answer isn't here on these boards.  The difference between prophetic utterance and opinion is one that has not even been clearly defined by the Brethren.  At least not in a way that aligns with our own historical teachings.

Edited June 20, 2014 by rockpond

[Avatar4321]

 

 

 

“We’re not activists. We’re not protesters,” Kelly told Reuters. ”We’re people on the inside. We are investing in an institution … not critiquing it to tear it down,”

 

I think that she is very misleading in this statement. Of course, they are activists and protesters but perhaps she shied away from describing her and her organization this way for fear that active mormon women and men would not join the movement. And she is critiquing the church for being patriarchal and fostering inequality between women and men,

 

 

 

Investing in an institution? She makes it sound like it's just a club. The only way you can "invest"  in the Church is to do what the Lord commands.

[rockpond]

I really hate to derail this thread, and to be honest I don't think you or I will come to much agreement on this subject, but nonetheless here are my responses:

 

 

Let's look at your example of Left-handedness.  Let us suppose that you have a predisposition to be left-handed (the cause of which is still debated by the way), but grew up in a society where it is strongly discouraged.  Because of this discouragement you learn to do everything with your right hand (eat, write, throw a ball, everything).  I would ask the question "Are you still left-handed?"  I would answer the question no.  Your right hand is much more dominant and capable, the most you can say is that had you grown up in a society that did not discourage left-handedness so strongly it probably would have been your dominant hand.

 

 

It seems you have done a cursory skimming of the article and may need to read the article again.  While the homosexual behavior was indeed religious in nature, and was used for initiation, the practice was expected to continue daily for years.

 

Young men were expected to receive semen daily either orally or anally, and it was presumed to be needed for their development into manhood.  Once manhood was reached they were expected to marry and produce offspring, but they were also expected to now take on the role of semen donor to the young members of the tribe.

 

Men of the tribe were expected to engage in homosexual acts daily for the vast majority of their life.  Notice as well that because they had no concept of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as we think of it, these homosexual acts were in no way an impediment to engaging in heterosexual ones.  Refusing to engage in heterosexual sex would have been just as unthinkable as refusing to engage in homosexual sex.

 

You cannot define whether or not these men are "homosexuals"  (whatever your specific definition of that word is).  The most you can say is that had they been born in a different culture (modern Western for example) the larger majority of them would probably not have engaged in homosexual acts.  Nonetheless rockpond, if you had been born into one of these Melanesian tribes you would have engaged in homosexual acts daily and considered it just as natural and attractive as whatever you currently find sexually attractive.

 

-guerreiro9

 

You're right -- we're unlikely to come to much agreement...

 

I could train my right hand but I would still be left-handed by nature.

 

Similarly, the Melanesian men engage in rituals that require a sexual act between two men.  They do it for weeks to years (per the article, not sure where it says "vast majority of their life".  That's their culture -- they believe it's the only way to make sure that the young men have "seed" to produce children.  But, that doesn't mean that they found it natural or attractive.  It doesn't demonstrate that they desired to love and build a life with someone of the same gender.

 

You conclusion here conflates a sexual act with sexual orientation.  One can participate in sexual acts of various types regardless of orientation.

[rockpond]

 

 

 

Investing in an institution? She makes it sound like it's just a club. The only way you can "invest"  in the Church is to do what the Lord commands.

 

 

Well, it looks like she may very well get kicked out.  So you win.  Except that you don't... we all lose.

[Senator]

The OW mission statement also claims that god is both male and female. I have never heard the church claim such a thing but then again I am not an active member either and so maybe I missed it somewhere. But this does sound incorrect.

When you say God is "both male and female", are meaning androgynous? Or are you saying there is no God the Mother?

[Yirgacheffe]

Actually there have been a few of societies where the entire male population adopted homosexuality. I see no reason why its promotion won't increase its prevalence. Every other human characteristic behaves in this manner and sexuality is not exempt.

-guerreiro9

Could you provide some more info and references for this, it is so totally sideways, I'd like to read more about it.

[Avatar4321]

Well, it looks like she may very well get kicked out.  So you win.  Except that you don't... we all lose.

 

I don't want her kicked out. I want her to reconcile with the Lord and serve in full fellowship.

[why me]

When you say God is "both male and female", are meaning androgynous? Or are you saying there is no God the Mother?

I did not say it but the OW mission statement does.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

 

What do you think they mean? I am only commenting on your post because you stated that I said it but it was actually said by OW. My question was: is this mission statement a statement of apostacy?

[Danzo]

DJBrown, respectfully, I have to ask if you know any same-sex families.  The ones I know are great examples of what families should be.  These same-sex parents love and sacrifice for their children.  Their example encourages me to strengthen my own heterosexual marriage.  Just as with heterosexual adoptive couples I know, same-sex adoptive couples can do everything for their children with the one exception of providing dna. 

 

In short, I have seen the fruit of their marriage and it is very good.  If you have differing experiences please do share.  I'd be interested to understand why yours is so different from mine.

 

Every gay person I have known as been a disfunctional disaster.

 

Different experiences

[Tacenda]

man oh man! I have sent a few scathing emails to the Bishop, stake and mission president about various matters-even had an interview with the Stake Pres. and they didn't deny me anything!

Yes, but did you in any way support SSM in those emails? That's what Seth's getting at. But posting a sweet video, you get your TR taken away? Seems a little out of whack to me.

[Danzo]

 

 

We see the exact same thing in large segments of the animal kingdom.  Gay chimps.  Lesbian geese.  Bi-sexual bears.  Are these animals sinning?  Did they choose to be gay or bi-sexual?  No.  It is part of their very nature -- and if we believe that God created all we must accept that God created gay animals.  

 

 

 

This argument is the biggest problem with the movement. It turns people into animals that have no agency.  This philosophy is what will destroy us faster than anything else.

[Danzo]

The thing is, we understand that there is no risk of everyone "adopting a homosexual lifestyle".  It's not a choice and there seems to be a consistently small percentage of the population who are naturally homosexual.  So you're comparison relies on a public health concern that doesn't exist.

 

There might not be any danger in everyone adopting a homosexual lifestyle. but there is great danger in adopting the attitude that "its not a choice" ("it" being whatever sin you are having trouble with) and just assuming that "small percentages of the population are naturally (forced to sin)." and therefore are exempt from "choice"