Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[Tacenda]

Probably. I don't necessarily look for loopholes, but I do find myself frequently challenged to keep all of the balls in the air in the juggling acts that are life and living the Gospel, respectively. If I'm doing OK in one/some areas, I find I've probably "dropped the ball" in others. What can I do but pick them all up and start again?

Ain't that the LDS life, get tired just remembering it.

[Kenngo1969]

There is no question in my mind that the "mantle of authority" is absolutely real.  It was an amazing experience and on many occasions I was directed to do things which would have never crossed my mind ordinarily.  And after I was released I was back to my old funky ordinary self in no time flat.  I have spoken to others who are and have been in those kinds of positions and in my experience, all agree to having had similar experiences.

I'd like to say that I can relate; alas, probably the closest I can come is my experience as full-time missionary.  I'm content to be a junior aid/mate to more senior men on The Good Ship Zion.

[Kenngo1969]

Ain't that the LDS life, get tired just remembering it.

Honey, as much as there is to do in a volunteer organization such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that's not a phenomenon unique to the Church: it's common to life ... period.    Anyone who's involved in any good cause, whether it's a church or something else that fits into Doctrine and Covenants 58:27-28, can relate to that:

 

Do not refer to women as honey if you want to stay in threads.

 

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

 

[LittleNipper]

The simple problem is that when people here speak of "Church" doctrine, they are speaking of "Mormon" doctrine and not Biblical teaching. The Bible clearly notes sin. Sex for bodily glorification is a sin, using people is a sin. Homosexual behavior is not the essence for procreation. There is nothing Biblically wrong with a white male marrying a black female. There is a biblical issue if these two individuals are of different faiths.

 

The problem with openly accepting blatant sin, is that it changes the dynamics of the message which will eventually lead to toning down the dynamic of sin. If being "gay" is ok, then what about divorce? Is that ok? And what about abortion ---- is that ok? What about not getting immersed --- is that as bad as having a mistress? Do Mormons indeed allow anyone to enter their "temples" at anytime? What if a Mormon is practicing homosexuality.

 

As a Christian (not a Mormon), I can say that anyone may enter any of our church buildings, and attend any service. However, the message is not toned down and a divorced "man" may not hold the position of pastor in the church I attend. In fact, that position cannot be held by a woman at the church I attend. And there are clearly biblical guidelines for such seemingly "anti-democratic" decisions. To be a Christian has nothing to do with being popular nor believing/accepting what is popular. It is all about the realization that one is in need of a Savior and must strive to live by example and not for the moment.

 

Society is not God. And a community that is led by fad and fashion, is clearly not being a light to the world. Being popular is nowhere in the biblical listing of desirable "Christian" attributes.

Edited January 21, 2015 by LittleNipper

[Kenngo1969]

I am always looking for the wiggle room ...

I realize this wasn't directed to me, so take my response for whatever it's worth, or not.  The Gospel's biggest "loopholes" are mercy and the Atonement.  No one would be anywhere without those.

[Calm]

Ain't that the LDS life, get tired just remembering it.

That is life period.

Add-on: so funny, posted this before I read you, Ken.

Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

I realize this wasn't directed to me, so take my response for whatever it's worth, or not.  The Gospel's biggest "loopholes" are mercy and the Atonement.  No one would be anywhere without those.

amen!

[HappyJackWagon]

I am always looking for the wiggle room Bob.

I need parts of the gospel to figurative

I need to have the true Doctrine of Tithing and not have have leaders shove 10% of gross down my throat when that is not God's word.

I need members to allow me to live by the spirit rather than be told I can't eat rum cake or beer battered onion rings.

I need to see Joseph as flawed as he implements polygamy.

 

If I can;t have that I have to leave.  I need the flexibility.  I was a very black and white follow the rules person.  I am not anymore. I live Moroni 7 - If it draws me to Christ... awesome.  If not I will find a way to avoid it.  The Church either takes me this way or if it forces me to fit it's culturally defined box, I will have to go.

DB-I think there are many people who feel this way. In some ways its as if they are hanging on to their participation in the church by their fingernails, trying to hold on to a more nuanced faith. And then on occassion someone will come along and peel away one of the fingers, losening their grip and imply, if not outright saying, "if you're not happy here, then leave." 

 

They do this by requiring belief in certain things, whether it be the date of Christ's birth or the historicity of the Book of Abraham, they set a bar that must be reached by the person who is really just trying to maintain a little space for unorthodox thought or unorthoprax behavior. I see no reason to try to push anyone out who desires to stay, provided they not attempting to harm others.

[Mystery Meat]

I am always looking for the wiggle room Bob.

I need parts of the gospel to figurative

I need to have the true Doctrine of Tithing and not have have leaders shove 10% of gross down my throat when that is not God's word.

I need members to allow me to live by the spirit rather than be told I can't eat rum cake or beer battered onion rings.

I need to see Joseph as flawed as he implements polygamy.

 

If I can;t have that I have to leave.  I need the flexibility.  I was a very black and white follow the rules person.  I am not anymore. I live Moroni 7 - If it draws me to Christ... awesome.  If not I will find a way to avoid it.  The Church either takes me this way or if it forces me to fit it's culturally defined box, I will have to go.

 

Just to play devil's advocate with you, but where does the truth factor in? Not trying to be a jerk or anything, just wondering. For me, I am open to a variety of possibilities when it comes to polygamy, the priesthood ban, the BoA and other sticky issues. Are you?

[HappyJackWagon]

Just to play devil's advocate with you, but where does the truth factor in? Not trying to be a jerk or anything, just wondering. For me, I am open to a variety of possibilities when it comes to polygamy, the priesthood ban, the BoA and other sticky issues. Are you?

But many people are not open to various possibilities. They are very rigid. They don't allow for the possibility that the 7 days of creation is figurative, or that Jonah wasn't really swallowed by a giant fish. Some require others to believe in their definition of tithing as 10% of gross + extra and don't allow for any other view. Some leaders make Rated R and caffeine questions additions to the temple recommend interview.

 

They allow for no variance of any kind from their black and white view of issues. This is common. Very common. So does the truth come in to play when they require things of others? No. It is personal understanding and preference, not hard doctrine.

 

I'm glad you're open to variations in belief about policy and cultural-doctrine but many are not and it's important to recognize that.

[Mystery Meat]

But many people are not open to various possibilities. They are very rigid. They don't allow for the possibility that the 7 days of creation is figurative, or that Jonah wasn't really swallowed by a giant fish. Some require others to believe in their definition of tithing as 10% of gross + extra and don't allow for any other view. Some leaders make Rated R and caffeine questions additions to the temple recommend interview.

 

They allow for no variance of any kind from their black and white view of issues. This is common. Very common. So does the truth come in to play when they require things of others? No. It is personal understanding and preference, not hard doctrine.

 

I'm glad you're open to variations in belief about policy and cultural-doctrine but many are not and it's important to recognize that.

 

No doubt about it. I do recognize that. But we shouldn't let their being rigid make us go the exact opposite way. For example, I am open to the possibility that Joseph Smith got some (maybe all, but I doubt it) things wrong when it came to polygamy. I am also open to the fact that he was living a higher law that I don't fully understand. Same thing with the priesthood ban. I am open to the possibility that Brigham Young was influenced by the societal influences of his day, yet, I am also open to the possibility that the Lord had a plan. 

 

I think we would be foolish to justify our rigid behavior based on the shortsidedness of others. There are certain things I am 100% immovable on, of course, such as the existence and nature of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the Prophetic mantel of Joseph Smith, the reality of the priesthood power/keys held within (and only within) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the essential nature of the first principals of the gospel, the effects of sin, the need for the atonement, the importance of the temple, and the plan of salvation. 

[LittleNipper]

People are not ridged in believing that the 6 days of Creation, the Flood, and the story of Jonah are just figurative? There are plenty of factual possibilities with regard to these as being actual events based on interpretation of found evidence. The K & T Boundary (found worldwide) being just one. It is certainly, considered a "proof" that an asteroid ended the Age of Dinosaurs to the evolutionist. However, the Flood Theorist is laughed at when he presents the very same "boundary" as proof of Noah's Deluge.

 

The Bible is the combined inspired work of many individuals. The book of Mormon can only be attributed to the inception of one individual ---- Joseph Smith. Copies of various books of the Bible exist for millennia. The book of Mormon is a modern phenomena without an ancient historic provenance. 

[tonie]

I find it interesting that DBMormon quotes mormonnewsroom as to what the Church considers Doctrine, his premise is rejected because someone else essentially suggest that mormonnewsroom is the end of the discussion on a different point of discussion - despite as DBMormon points out from mormonnewsroom not every utterance is considered Doctrine.

 

 

As for loopholes:

 

Jesus instructed that we be wise as a serpent yet harmless as a dove.

[DBMormon]

Just to play devil's advocate with you, but where does the truth factor in? Not trying to be a jerk or anything, just wondering. For me, I am open to a variety of possibilities when it comes to polygamy, the priesthood ban, the BoA and other sticky issues. Are you?

If God directly says it I usually find little problem.  It is when we extend God's word to more or less than what he has said and the thing said doesn't fit for me.  I am open to where the Holy Ghost and my study takes me.

[DBMormon]

I find it interesting that DBMormon quotes mormonnewsroom as to what the Church considers Doctrine, his premise is rejected because someone else essentially suggest that mormonnewsroom is the end of the discussion on a different point of discussion - despite as DBMormon points out from mormonnewsroom not every utterance is considered Doctrine.

 

 

As for loopholes:

 

Jesus instructed that we be wise as a serpent yet harmless as a dove.

I am soft and cuddly like a dove too!  just for the record!

[HappyJackWagon]

People are not ridged in believing that the 6 days of Creation, the Flood, and the story of Jonah are just figurative? There are plenty of factual possibilities with regard to these as being actual events based on interpretation of found evidence. The K & T Boundary (found worldwide) being just one. It is certainly, considered a "proof" that an asteroid ended the Age of Dinosaurs to the evolutionist. However, the Flood Theorist is laughed at when he presents the very same "boundary" as proof of Noah's Deluge.

 

The Bible is the combined inspired work of many individuals. The book of Mormon can only be attributed to the inception of one individual ---- Joseph Smith. Copies of various books of the Bible exist for millennia. The book of Mormon is a modern phenomena without an ancient historic provenance. 

People are rigid in beleiving that the creation, flood etc could NOT be figurative. You misread that. I have no problem if people want to believe it is literal. My problem is when they require other people to adopt that same view. There is room for differing beliefs.

 

The book of Mormon is also ascribed to many people. Every author within the BoM and every person who compiled or abridged the records are attributed  for their contributions. To attribute it only to JS is to say he wrote it himself.

[DBMormon]

This may give some help to the discussion

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/62620/Elder-Paul-V-Johnson-Helping-students-dispel-doubt-through-spiritual-knowledge.html

 

"Another challenge we face, especially if we have taught for some time, is a tendency to hold on to old files and old explanations," he said. "We would be much better off keeping up with the current stance of the Church."

One of the best ways to do this is to be familiar with material in the newsroom atlds.org, Elder Johnson said. "Let's keep up to date with the light we have been given."

"Many of us have a difficult time dealing with ambiguity, especially in issues concerning the Church," he said. "In fact, we may be drawn to use quotes in our teaching that are definitive because they seem to dispel the ambiguity. But some quotes are definitive on issues where there is no official answer. People who are more tentative on a subject that hasn't been revealed or resolved don't get quoted as much, but may be more in line with where our current knowledge is. We plan to add helps to the curriculum for certain questions that are commonly raised."

 

He seems to be throwing me and Scott a bone

[Calm]

Our ward library is filled with pictures from the 60s and 70s, even earlier.  There are basically three sets of pictures, only the most recent one is from the 90s and current is being used. Nobody uses the older two sets that take up one and a half as much room as the third set but if they are removed, suddenly we have this huge empty space.  I think there is such a dislike of having empty space no one is able to consider throwing them away (I didn't because I actually liked the older pictures as some were classic paintings and such and tried to make them accessible, but people barely use the full size ones now that everything is included in the lesson manual for the most part or the Gospel Art Kit…I should have just accepted that and taken them all to DI so that people who wanted them for FHE could have them…maybe I will talk to the current librarian and offer to do that as well as put an item in the bulletin that the older pictures are available to anyone who wants to come get them first….hmmmm).

 

I think our folklore does much the same mentally as the pictures do physically….the old explanations and files make it appear like we have more knowledge and we feel safer and more comfortable.

 

OTOH if we have the guts and make the effort to actually look at the old stuff and judge what is of value and what is just taking up space and has already been replaced with something better, then we create an environment that is expansive and open to receiving new things, new ideas.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it interesting that DBMormon quotes mormonnewsroom as to what the Church considers Doctrine, his premise is rejected because someone else essentially suggest that mormonnewsroom is the end of the discussion on a different point of discussion - despite as DBMormon points out from mormonnewsroom not every utterance is considered Doctrine.

 

I'm having trouble making sense out of this remark.

 

But in any event, it does not in the least counter my point, which is this: The Church, on at least two websites directed to the general public, has stated unequivocally that SSA is not a condition that will persist beyond this narrow window of time that we call mortality. One of those websites bears this label (and I'll post it in larger type this time, lest anyone should miss it):

 

"the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public."

 

Ergo, this is THE resource one consults when seeking the official Church position on public issues and controversies in the media, such as same-sex attraction, and specifically on questions such as whether SSA is a condition that continues after mortality.

 

On the other hand, I know of no pronouncement by any of those in high leadership positions in the Church that could in any way be construed to contradict what has been stated on LDS "Newsroom" and on the gaysandmormons website pertaining to this matter.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This may give some help to the discussion

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/62620/Elder-Paul-V-Johnson-Helping-students-dispel-doubt-through-spiritual-knowledge.html

 

He seems to be throwing me and Scott a bone

Nonsense. He's not throwing me a bone.

 

And I find it enigmatic that, in the face of clear indication to the contrary, you appear to cling to the fantasy that the Church has not spoken clearly and definitively on the matter of whether SSA is a condition that persists beyond mortality.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[LittleNipper]

The Book of Mormon; unfortunately, has no existing ancient copies prior to its appearance as a "complete work" in the early 19th century. It is not enough that it contains a group of books attributed to different authors --- nor the fact that it contains quotes from the Bible. The quotes are attributable to their source; however, the Book of Mormon is but a book without any proof that the individual books it contains ever existed independently from that human endeavor.

 

I do not require anyone to believe anything. However, God does require that one accepts his Son as his personal Savior. It is the ONLY way (not by any other name) a person can expect eternal life. And I have found that as people become drawn to the Lord, they begin to accept the Bible as factual in it historic content. To believe that Jesus as Messiah is entirely based on the authority of the Bible. As the Holy Spirit begin a work in an individual, that person seeks the truth and direction of God and not mere feelings.

 

You need to start your own thread for this. Stop derailing this one.

[Calm]

You really should work harder at getting your posts to match the topic.  

[Kenngo1969]

That is life period.

Add-on: so funny, posted this before I read you, Ken.

That'll show you!

[DBMormon]

Nonsense. He's not throwing me a bone.

 

And I find it enigmatic that, in the face of clear indication to the contrary, you appear to cling to the fantasy that the Church has not spoken clearly and definitively on the matter of whether SSA is a condition that persists beyond mortality.

Has Jesus taught this with his own voice?  Or is it the only way our leaders can make sense of the gay issue?  If Christ has not spoken, I won't be pushed into a corner by you or anyone else.  Do you know for certain?  I don't, and no leader has claimed Jesus has taught them this.  Am I clinging to fantasy?  perhaps, but then none of us have been into immortality and back with an answer to this question... so in reality we are all clinging to something that may or may not be fantasy whether individual beliefs or the whole kit and kaboodle.

[Scott Lloyd]

Has Jesus taught this with his own voice?  Or is it the only way our leaders can make sense of the gay issue?  If Christ has not spoken, I won't be pushed into a corner by you or anyone else.  Do you know for certain?  I don't, and no leader has claimed Jesus has taught them this.  Am I clinging to fantasy?  perhaps, but then none of us have been into immortality and back with an answer to this question... so in reality we are all clinging to something that may or may not be fantasy whether individual beliefs or the whole kit and kaboodle.

Yes, I know it for certain.

 

It is the only paradigm that is consistent with the great plan of happiness and with doctrines pertaining to the family and to eternal exaltation. And it is consistent with what prophets and apostles have taught through the years and with what they do now teach.

 

So, to sum it up, I am faced with the choice between what prophets and apostles have unitedly and consistently taught through many years and the ruminations of Bill Reel.

 

With all due respect, it is no contest for me. I cast my lot with the prophets.