Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[Avatar4321]

"Naturally" under what conditions? "Naturally" in what culture? Who defines what it means to be "naturally homosexual"? You? Me?

You're too black and white on this issue rockpond. Sexuality is much more nuanced than "you are or you ain't".

As an aside if our culture strongly encouraged left-handedness, what percentage of the population do you think would believe they were right handed?

-guerreiro9

 

Not only that, but whether it occurs naturally is completely irrelevant. The Atonement of Jesus Christ changes human nature. That's the entire purpose of it. To argue whether it is natural or not is completely irrelevant because the natural man is an enemy to God and we are supposed to put off the natural man and be born of God.

[Avatar4321]

Or are they there to assert power over people?  It seems to me they can persuade people without calling a disciplinary council.  Pray for them. Teach the truth in love. I don't think people respond very well to getting punched in the face even if it is only figuratively. 

 

But they have authority over them. To righteously use that authority is not a bad thing.

[guerreiro9]

Does that mean that cultures should outlaw those behaviors they deem unfavorable?

A successful society will promote behaviors viewed as being beneficial, discourage behaviors viewed as being harmful, and allow freedom to engage in other activities of unclear benefit without actively promoting or discouraging them.

-guerreiro9

 

The OP is about church actions not cannabilism and homosexuality.  Stay on topic or make a new thread.

[Bart Burk]

But they have authority over them. To righteously use that authority is not a bad thing.

 

But it might not be the most prudent course in the long run.  These dissenters have absolutely no power and the LDS Church is giving them more power through its actions.  Once these people are gone there will just be more like them to take their place.  Liberals will always be around to poke people in the eye.

[Gray]

It's a problem when a Bishop is tweeting and and posting on Facebook opinions that are contrary to church doctrine.

 

It's also possible you may be called into a Bishops office if you tweet things contrary to church doctrine and depending on what you say in the interview things will play out from there.  I highly doubt if you are critical every once in a while the church does anything.  Its the constant nitpicking that seems to do it.  All of the people in the article seemed to have a problem with how often they did it.

 

Many faithful members of the church support gay marriage. 

[Gray]

I strongly agree with you. The problem is not so much the content of what Kate Kelly has been saying as the means and tone she has used (although her public accusations against her bishop are problematic both in tone and content).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree that her tone has been counter productive  

Edited June 20, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

However, holllywood has been stressing the homosexual lifestyle for years because many TV series have a homosexual character in it. Why? Why the need to promote the homosexual lifestyle on the TV if only a small percentage of the population are homosexuals? And has the prominence of homosexual characters on the TV helped turn people's attitudes in accepting SSM and in adopting a homosexual lifestyle?

 

Even more insidious, is the promotion of the heterosexual lifestyle. TV shows are absolutely full of them, kissing in full public view, even getting married. They're recruiting!

 

[rockpond]

I do. Im not sure rock does though.

 

My current calling requires participation in disciplinary councils.  I'm quite familiar with their purpose.

[sethpayne]

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".

I wish I were cute and clever.

Perhaps the reason this subject continually comes up is because no one has yet to offer up criteria for which an outside objective observer can make the distinction between opinion and prophecy. Without a consistent and clear criteria the whole effort seems like an exercise in moving goalposts to fit ones own personal views when a prophet says something we don't like.

[rockpond]

I don't have to assume anything. When one is in open rebellion for all the world to see, the world can see it. All one has to do is read what she and the others are saying and see the rebellious spirit in them.

 

To be reconciled with God, we have to submit to Him. We have to accept our circumstances and what He calls for us and not fight against it. We have to become as a child, willing to submit to all things.

 

It's very difficult to do sometimes. But you can't spit in the Lord's face and expect everything to be hunky dory.

 

Demanding priesthood doesn't work. We can't demand anything from God. We can't purchase anything with money. We have to accept His gifts at His terms or we have no right to them.

 

I don't see her as being in "open rebellion" and unless you know her personally, I think it is inappropriate to cast the judgments you are making here.  As for her actions regarding the OW group.  Consider this statement from a man sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator:

 

"You young people live in an age when freedom of the mind is suppressed over much of the world. We must preserve it in the Church and in America and resist all efforts of earnest men to suppress it, for when it is suppressed, we might lose the liberties vouchsafed in the Constitution of the United States.

 

"Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.

 

"Dissatisfaction with what is around us is not a bad thing if it prompts us to seek betterment. …"

[sethpayne]

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.

I said nothing about people being animals. Only that God has created gay animals as part of His creation.

[rockpond]

"Naturally" under what conditions? "Naturally" in what culture? Who defines what it means to be "naturally homosexual"? You? Me?

You're too black and white on this issue rockpond. Sexuality is much more nuanced than "you are or you ain't".

As an aside if our culture strongly encouraged left-handedness, what percentage of the population do you think would believe they were right handed?

-guerreiro9

 

By naturally homosexual I am referring to those who seem to have that orientation from puberty or before.  Yes, there are nuances but I don't see sufficient evidence to conclude that sexual orientation is as malleable as you seem to be making a case for.  Behaviors are malleable and impacted by culture, beliefs, environment, etc.  Inherent attractions are not so easily impacted.

Edited June 20, 2014 by rockpond

[sethpayne]

And she did nothing else? the bishop, without discussion walked up to her in church and asked for her recommend?

She was called in for an interview shortly after the post and her recommend was taken. That's what I know. But knowing my friend and her activity and faithfulness I would be surprised if there was something else amiss.

But insinuating that she must be guilty of some other sin is an easy way to discount or ignore her experience.

[rockpond]

Not only that, but whether it occurs naturally is completely irrelevant. The Atonement of Jesus Christ changes human nature. That's the entire purpose of it. To argue whether it is natural or not is completely irrelevant because the natural man is an enemy to God and we are supposed to put off the natural man and be born of God.

 

Fortunately, most heterosexuals get to "put off the natural man and be born of God" with the help of a spouse.

 

Everybody, this is not a thread about homosexuality. Posts and posters will be removed if the hijack continues.

[rockpond]

But they have authority over them. To righteously use that authority is not a bad thing.

 

You might be confusing authority with stewardship.

[Danzo]

She was called in for an interview shortly after the post and her recommend was taken. That's what I know. But knowing my friend and her activity and faithfulness I would be surprised if there was something else amiss.

But insinuating that she must be guilty of some other sin is an easy way to discount or ignore her experience.

 

If, during the interview, the person did was not able to answer all of the worthiness questions correctly, the the recommend would be taken.

 

 

Since we don't know what went on during the interview, we should not be making assumptions.

[Danzo]

I said nothing about people being animals. Only that God has created gay animals as part of His creation.

 

Hermaphrodites, as well.

 

I appologize for misunderstanding. From the context, It almost appeared that you were using animal behavior to justify human behavior.

[Senator]

Is god both man and woman, male and female? I believe that OW is playing with words. It should say this: We are children of heavenly parents and all us can progress to be like them someday. But by saying that god is both man and woman it delutes the concept of heavenly parents and makes god a god who has both genders.

 

I think you are extracting an unecessary androgynous meaning out of the statement.

 

 

 

⁶ The doctrine of humans’ eternal potential to become like their Heavenly Father is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ and inspires love, hope, and gratitude in the hearts of faithful Latter-day Saints.

 

Describe  how a female's eternal potential is to become like their Heavenly Father?

 

Yes, I believe there is a God the Mother equal to God the Father.

 

I don't think we can comprehend the explicit oneness of their Duality.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Senator

[sethpayne]

Hermaphrodites, as well.

 

I appologize for misunderstanding. From the context, It almost appeared that you were using animal behavior to justify human behavior.

 

Certainly not.

 

Human beings have miraculous consciousness and are thus capable of making moral judgements and acting on moral principle.

[sethpayne]

If, during the interview, the person did was not able to answer all of the worthiness questions correctly, the the recommend would be taken.

 

 

Since we don't know what went on during the interview, we should not be making assumptions.

 

Quite true.  But I don't think I made an assumption since she told me directly about her experience.

 

The facts are this.  

 

1.  She posted a video on FB

2.  She was subsequently called into an interview 

3.  She was told by her Bishop that her temple recommend was being revoked temporarily due to her FB post

 

I'm sure there could be a lot more to it but such speculation would be, as you say, mere assumption and conjecture.

[awyatt]

What would you call Bishops going out of there way, following peoples face book accounts and calling people in for disciplinary actions threatening excommunication or disfellowship or yanking Temple recommends as seems to be the case with the person in the OP of this thread for things they post online other than "forced Repentance"?

 

Is the church becoming a Police state now?

Sometimes I don't think people think things through fully. (*sigh*)

 

When I was a bishop, if I read something that someone had posted online about not having food or facing eviction, should I not have gone to them and offered to help? Should I have ignored the need even if it was brought to me by someone else who saw the person's post?

 

If I read something that someone had posted about the Church being wrong, or saying that Joseph Smith was like Warren Jeffs, or having a bumper sticker on their car saying "Joseph's Myth," should I not likewise go to them and find out what is going on?

 

How is one permissible and the other not? Why is investigating and helping with temporal matters laudable, but investigating and helping with spiritual matters is condemned?

 

A bishop is responsible for the welfare of his flock, both temporal and spiritual. To condemn a man (saying he is part of the "thought police") because he investigates what he sees as a problem is uncharitable in the extreme. It is also hypocritical if you don't likewise condemn him for offering to help pay the rent or put food in the cupboards.

 

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

Most likely. I don't like the idea of keeping tabs on people for their belief, lack thereof, or opinions that differ from doctrine or policy. Isn't enough to call them in for interviews and asking them? Not sure it's a good idea to engage in such monitoring.

If I were a priesthood leader charged with judging the worthiness of people to hold Church callings, receive a temple recommend, etc., I don't think I would be doing any monitoring, per se. But if in some way I were to become aware of online posting from someone that made it clear such a person had lied to me in worthiness interviews, it would be considerable cause for concern to me.

[jkwilliams]

Sometimes I don't think people think things through fully. (*sigh*)

 

When I was a bishop, if I read something that someone had posted online about not having food or facing eviction, should I not have gone to them and offered to help? Should I have ignored the need even if it was brought to me by someone else who saw the person's post?

 

If I read something that someone had posted about the Church being wrong, or saying that Joseph Smith was like Warren Jeffs, or having a bumper sticker on their car saying "Joseph's Myth," should I not likewise go to them and find out what is going on?

 

How is one permissible and the other not? Why is investigating and helping with temporal matters laudable, but investigating and helping with spiritual matters is condemned?

 

A bishop is responsible for the welfare of his flock, both temporal and spiritual. To condemn a man (saying he is part of the "thought police") because he investigates what he sees as a problem is uncharitable in the extreme. It is also hypocritical if you don't likewise condemn him for offering to help pay the rent or put food in the cupboards.

 

-Allen

 

Sometimes it's higher up. I used to get hits on my blog every day from the Church Office Building, and then when I made a joking post about it, the hits abruptly stopped. Shortly thereafter I started getting hits from the More Good foundation. Coincidence? Maybe. A couple of years ago a good friend told me he had just been in a meeting in the Church Office Building during which they discussed web sites that were critical of the church and what to do about them. He said he had to suppress a laugh when he saw my blog up on the screen. Ultimately, he said, they decided that I wasn't much of a threat, and they moved on. I thought it was kind of funny, but it means they are keeping an eye on people from levels above bishops and stake presidents. I'm not complaining about it. It's what they do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometimes I don't think people think things through fully. (*sigh*)

 

When I was a bishop, if I read something that someone had posted online about not having food or facing eviction, should I not have gone to them and offered to help? Should I have ignored the need even if it was brought to me by someone else who saw the person's post?

 

If I read something that someone had posted about the Church being wrong, or saying that Joseph Smith was like Warren Jeffs, or having a bumper sticker on their car saying "Joseph's Myth," should I not likewise go to them and find out what is going on?

 

How is one permissible and the other not? Why is investigating and helping with temporal matters laudable, but investigating and helping with spiritual matters is condemned?

 

A bishop is responsible for the welfare of his flock, both temporal and spiritual. To condemn a man (saying he is part of the "thought police") because he investigates what he sees as a problem is uncharitable in the extreme. It is also hypocritical if you don't likewise condemn him for offering to help pay the rent or put food in the cupboards.

 

-Allen

A real-life illustration of the hypothetical I just posted.

[california boy]

The cannibalism comment was not meant as an attack against you, but as an opening thought to give you some perspective before reading the posted link.

A few years ago I took a university course on human sexuality. As part of that course I was required to write a research paper on the prevalence of homosexuality in nonwestern cultures. What I found was surprising and completely changed my preconceptions about sexuality. I do not claim to be an expert in this area (my background is physics and engineering), but the material was abundant and easily found, in fact most of it was in our text book.

Despite this I have found that whenever I mention what I learned to people they vehemently deny the findings. For some reason people will not entertain the possibility that their sexuality is influenced by their culture, but will freely admit that their culture had an influence on whether they were willing to eat other people.

Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps my text book was wrong, but there sure seems to be a whole lot of information suggesting that your sexuality (including whether you engage in homosexuality) is strongly influenced by your culture.

The Melanesians are just the extreme example.

-guerreiro9

 

I think the thing that might be confusing some people is that while homosexual ACTS may be influenced by culture, homosexual orientation is not.  There is a saying that just because you are in the garage, does not mean that you are a car.  Our society in America is VERY heterosexual.   You are taught to like the opposite sex at a very early age from almost all segments of society.   In your family, in school, at church, through the media, in literature etc.  While there are a handful of gay characters on tv and in the movies, I don't think there is any shortage of hetero sex coming from the movie industry.

 

When I got off my mission, my church leaders at the time counseled me to marry even though I was gay.  They promised me that if I just married, then these SSA would gradually disappear.  That proved to be a falsehood and the church has since stopped giving such advice.  While I was married for many years, had children and heterosecual experiences, I NEVER felt like I was straight.  I always knew I was gay even in the act of having sex with my wife.  I think most gay men experience that same thing.  It is why so many gay/straight marriages fail.

 

Your very rare example where a society filps things the other way and makes homosexual acts as the norm does not mean at all that the men's sexual orientation has changed.  It only means that they accept homosexual acts as part of their culture much the same way a gay person accepts heterosexual experience as the norm in our culture.  I hope that clairifies the conclusions drawn from your example.  You certainly can not claim that these men in that society change their orientation to homosexual any more than you can claim that in our society a gay person changes his orientation if he has sex with the opposite sex. 

 

Edit.  Sorry Moderator, I didn't read to the end of the thread and came across your note.  

Edited June 20, 2014 by california boy