Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 In another thread, from which I was banned for some unknown reason DBMormon posted-"Rob, I totally hear your point and I validate it as one viable perspective. But I also read of the Savior who sat right in the midst of the sinners. He talked with them, ate with them, he even implied that he fit in better with those who were outwardly apparent that they were sinning deeply. The question at the heart of this matter is what is the balance between using discipline to encourage one to improve and using Charity and friendship and non judgmental love to help them to become better?For example say we have a single young women who is sleeping around. It is sin, no doubt about that. We could if were were the Bishop, hold a disciplinary court. It may or may not help her see the error of her ways and she may or may not change. She also may leave the church, not feeling of worth due to our seeing the one serious ill in her life rather than the validation and friendship and emptiness she feels which leads to such choices. Perhaps she does a dozen things really well and yet our focus on the one perceived ill has us seeing no choice but to limit her church participation or cut off her membership.What if we, while not validation her sin as "not Sin", simply loved her and accepted her and said we know you have this problem here... but we also see all the good you do and all the blessings you bring to others, and simply focus on them as a child of God who needs to be loved and valued. Maybe she continues to sleep around, but does she improve in other areas? Does she grow closer to Christ? Does she in other ways improve? Are we willing to set a perceived sin aside while we help the individual come unto Christ in other areas of their life? We each have sins and some of our are more hidden and out of sight.... I am grateful that the Savior allows me to move forward even in my sins as I work to repent and become like him. Is it better we cast them out or keep them in while working with them and perhaps even ignoring their one sin n favor of helping them improve in other areas..... I don't know but I do at least see room and argue in favor of the latter.EDITED TO ADD: I can see he is gone, too bad"I just wanted to add that yes we can include the sinner but exclude the sin. With homosexuality becoming an issue within the church I feel it best to not be inclusive towards any idea which may show us embracing homosexuality.
california boy Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Christ didn't wait until the sinners forsaken their sins before inviting them to be next to Him. Or even seeking them out and becoming one with them. If you want to follow the Savior, his example is pretty clear. The pious Pharisees, whom Christ condemned, chastised Christ for being among the sinners. Their approach was to distance themselves from those that sinned, not to welcome them in. So the choice is clear. Do you want to follow Christ or do you want to follow the Pharisees. 3
Popular Post Buzzard Posted January 15, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 15, 2015 I want to follow Christ, and show love towards all men and women. Remember, the woman who poured lotion on the Saviors feet, washed them with her tears, and dried them with her hair, she was repentant, felt sorrow for her sins, and was told by Jesus that her sins were forgiven. What a remarkable gift, and from the Son of God himself.The woman who was taken in the very act of adultery, Christ showed compassion to her, stopped the mob from stoning her, and instructed her to "sin no more". One can only hope that this was the start of her repentance process, but she was not yet in a position to have her sins forgiven. 7
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 To embrace the idea that we should avoid others because we don't want to come off as endorsing their sin is a completely backwards idea. I long for the day when any and all people sit in a setting wherein we talk openly about all the important issues in the lives of the participants. I try to do that all the time. I wish it were called Church. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) The line between loving the sinner and hating the sin (and/or determining how to deal with the sin, and with the sinner, in light of his sin) can be tough to draw. Personally, I'm glad I've never (and likely will never) have a position in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that confronts me with the dilemma of how the Church, through one of its leaders, should respond to such situations. King Benjamin said (asked) it best: "Are we not all beggars?" Are we not dependent upon God for everything we have, everything we are, and everything we hope to be? And as Paul said, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." As Joanne, Jim's wife in the Church production The Prodigal Son, put it, it wasn't just Tom, with the "big sins" that needed Jesus Christ, and added, "None of us can make it halfway through this life or into the next without the Savior." On a personal level, I'm disinclined to judge someone else simply because he sins differently than I do. And even if our lives are going swimmingly and we have no major sins or challenges (how would it be?), all of us in any given sacrament meeting on any given week are spiritually sick ... if not from sins or from other trials, then simply from being separated from God here in mortality. Edited January 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I just wanted to add that yes we can include the sinner but exclude the sin. With homosexuality becoming an issue within the church I feel it best to not be inclusive towards any idea which may show us embracing homosexuality. Well, you probably need to clarify that last statement because homosexuality is just a sexual orientation. Being homosexual is not a sin. We should warmly welcome homosexuals in the same way that we warmly welcome heterosexuals. No difference. That is the current Church policy as put forward on MormonsandGays.org.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 In another thread, from which I was banned for some unknown reason... I assume you were banned for not failure to follow board guidelines. There is a link to those at the bottom of the page.
CV75 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I just wanted to add that yes we can include the sinner but exclude the sin. With homosexuality becoming an issue within the church I feel it best to not be inclusive towards any idea which may show us embracing homosexuality.People are welcomed into the fold not because of their sexual orientation, but because they are presumed to be willing to be counted among the children of God (D&C 20:69). The doctrine of Christ enjoins us to “become as a little child” (3 Nephi 11:37; in Mosiah 3:19 this is expanded upon as being “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father;” and in Alma 13:28, these qualities are the fruits of being “led by the Holy Spirit.”). The doctrine of Christ is essentially the practice of charity. Sin entices us to act in opposition to this doctrine and the qualities it espouses, so whenever our sins rise to the level of introducing the spirit of contention into the fold, the Lord has put in place several systems and approaches to address that problem. They each involve charity and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, whether parents are teaching their children not to do what they see others doing or priesthood leaders are asking or counseling members to improve their behavior (public and private). Sins, whether private or very much out in the open, aren’t issues for branch or ward unity until prideful and contentious behavior becomes part of the mix, which can occur in degrees that warrant little or much attention. One thing is for sure, any sin left unchecked will eventually erupt in some sort of spirit of contention at some time, even if against oneself, whether in this world or the next.
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I want to follow Christ, and show love towards all men and women. Remember, the woman who poured lotion on the Saviors feet, washed them with her tears, and dried them with her hair, she was repentant, felt sorrow for her sins, and was told by Jesus that her sins were forgiven. What a remarkable gift, and from the Son of God himself.The woman who was taken in the very act of adultery, Christ showed compassion to her, stopped the mob from stoning her, and instructed her to "sin no more". One can only hope that this was the start of her repentance process, but she was not yet in a position to have her sins forgiven. To be clear, Jesus never told the woman that He forgave her. He said simply, "neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." John 8:11. In my opinion, the best answer to the question in the OP is found in 3 Nephi 18: "And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not; 23 But ye shall pray for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be that they come unto you oft ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name. 24 Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed. 25 And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation. 26 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen, and said unto them: 27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me. 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; 29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthilyeateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. 30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood. 31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know mysheep, and they are numbered. 32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them."
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I assume you were banned for not failure to follow board guidelines. There is a link to those at the bottom of the page.Who knows but it is frustrating when they do not even state why you are banned. I was asking another board member a legitimate question and they must have thought I was doing something weird.
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Well, you probably need to clarify that last statement because homosexuality is just a sexual orientation. Being homosexual is not a sin. We should warmly welcome homosexuals in the same way that we warmly welcome heterosexuals. No difference. That is the current Church policy as put forward on MormonsandGays.org.I do not consider someone who has SSA to be homosexual. A homosexual is someone who acts upon that SSA. Just because I myself am attracted to other women besides my wife does not make me an adulterer. We can have various attractions, but those attractions do not define us. Its what are actions are that defines us. here- I find it of interest that the church refers to it as SSA and not homosexuality. So, when I say- " I feel it best to not be inclusive towards any idea which may show us embracing homosexuality." I mean it in the sense that we shouldnt embrace the actions of homosexuals defined as sin by the church (kissing, holding hands, living together, SSM, dating, etc) who act on their SSA.
Boanerges Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I want to follow Christ, and show love towards all men and women. Remember, the woman who poured lotion on the Saviors feet, washed them with her tears, and dried them with her hair, she was repentant, felt sorrow for her sins, and was told by Jesus that her sins were forgiven. What a remarkable gift, and from the Son of God himself.The woman who was taken in the very act of adultery, Christ showed compassion to her, stopped the mob from stoning her, and instructed her to "sin no more". One can only hope that this was the start of her repentance process, but she was not yet in a position to have her sins forgiven.He also said to her "neither do I condemn thee." I think we sometimes forget that. None of us - NONE - are free of sin. Not one of us. Unless they pose a direct danger to us we should not forbid or deter them from being among us. Edited January 15, 2015 by Boanerges
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Christ didn't wait until the sinners forsaken their sins before inviting them to be next to Him. Or even seeking them out and becoming one with them. If you want to follow the Savior, his example is pretty clear. The pious Pharisees, whom Christ condemned, chastised Christ for being among the sinners. Their approach was to distance themselves from those that sinned, not to welcome them in. So the choice is clear. Do you want to follow Christ or do you want to follow the Pharisees.You are twisting things a bit here. Jesus was willing to work with and associate with repentant sinners. Of course the Pharisees saw his as consorting with sinners. We are to invite people out of the mud pit and help them out but the idea that Jesus hung out with unrepentant philanderers and other sinners is a myth. Jesus was almost intolerably severe on sin. He took the sins of others more seriously then the Pharisees. He just had the added bonus of seeing their sins as well. If the Pharisees were sinners why did he not also associate and dine with them? Was it because they were not repentant? 2
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I do not consider someone who has SSA to be homosexual. A homosexual is someone who acts upon that SSA. Just because I myself am attracted to other women besides my wife does not make me an adulterer. We can have various attractions, but those attractions do not define us. Its what are actions are that defines us. here- I find it of interest that the church refers to it as SSA and not homosexuality. So, when I say- " I feel it best to not be inclusive towards any idea which may show us embracing homosexuality." I mean it in the sense that we shouldnt embrace the actions of homosexuals defined as sin by the church (kissing, holding hands, living together, SSM, dating, etc) who act on their SSA. I think that's an important clarification to make. Also, I'm not sure how welcoming them into church meetings could be considered as an endorsement of or "embracing" kissing, holding hands, living together, SSM, or dating. So maybe you and Bill (DBMormon) aren't really that far apart on this.
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I think that's an important clarification to make. Also, I'm not sure how welcoming them into church meetings could be considered as an endorsement of or "embracing" kissing, holding hands, living together, SSM, or dating. So maybe you and Bill (DBMormon) aren't really that far apart on this.We are worlds apart on this where it matters most. We both agree that we should include tham and invite them out to church and activities of the church. We differ in that I believe homosexual activity is and always will be a grevious sin and that we should listen to the prophets. He believes the church is in error and that the church will change to make homosexuality on equal ground as heterosexual relationships in the temple. My beef is that we have to be careful about inviting them back to church in that we do not show endorsement for their actions. Also, we should always teach that families are man, woman, children and that SSM will never be recognized within the church and that it (homosexual activity)will still be taught as sinful in church on Sundays. Edited January 15, 2015 by Rob Osborn
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 We are worlds apart on this where it matters most. We both agree that we should include tham and invite them out to church and activities of the church. We differ in that I believe homosexual activity is and always will be a grevious sin and that we should listen to the prophets. He believes the church is in error and that the church will change to make homosexuality on equal ground as heterosexual relationships in the temple. My beef is that we have to be careful about inviting them back to church in that we do not show endorsement for their actions and that it will still be taught as sinful in church on Sundays. I have never witnessed a homosexual individual kicked out of any church meeting or activity. This really is a straw man argument from folks who want the church to change. The church's position is that everybody should be invited to attend church meetings and activities. But- the line is drawn when it comes to participating in ordinances or teachings/speaking/praying. So for those who argue the church should change how it fellowships homosexual individuals (meaning those who are openly or actively participating in homosexual activity), which of these activities should these individuals be allowed to do?
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 ...and that the church will change to make homosexuality on equal ground as heterosexual relationships in the temple. Oh, well he's right about that. Eventually, but not soon. My beef is that we have to be careful about inviting them back to church in that we do not show endorsement for their actions. Also, we should always teach that families are man, woman, children and that SSM will never be recognized within the church and that it (homosexual activity)will still be taught as sinful in church on Sundays. So you agree that we need to invite them to be there you just don't want us to teach that sin is something other than sin, right? I agree with that.
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I have never witnessed a homosexual individual kicked out of any church meeting or activity. This really is a straw man argument from folks who want the church to change. The church's position is that everybody should be invited to attend church meetings and activities. But- the line is drawn when it comes to participating in ordinances or teachings/speaking/praying. So for those who argue the church should change how it fellowships homosexual individuals (meaning those who are openly or actively participating in homosexual activity), which of these activities should these individuals be allowed to do?Invite them out and continue to teach the truth and pray for them that they will come to repentance.
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Oh, well he's right about that. Eventually, but not soon. So you agree that we need to invite them to be there you just don't want us to teach that sin is something other than sin, right? I agree with that.homosexual activity is a sin.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) homosexual activity is a sin. All sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin as defined by the law of chastity. Edited January 15, 2015 by rockpond
rodheadlee Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It still all boils down to the fact that most SSM people don't believe they have anything to repent of regarding their relationship sexual choice. How can you be forgiven if you don't even believe you are sinning?
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 All sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin as defined by the law of chastity.Yes, and at the time it was so defined marriage had a clear meaning. Changing the meaning does not change the law. If we redefine "sexual relations" to mean only incest is God then forced to allow all other kinds of fornication because that is what he said?
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It still all boils down to the fact that most SSM people don't believe they have anything to repent of regarding their relationship sexual choice. How can you be forgiven if you don't even believe you are sinning? not really. All of us sin and many of us hold on to certain sins, often telling ourselves we have nothing to repent of. hate to say it, but going by this logic, the Church would have to kick out the whole of us. There'd be nothing left but you and Thomas S. Monson, and he I hear is not doing all that well physically so I'd imagine you'd still find yourself sitting at Church by yourself.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Yes, and at the time it was so defined marriage had a clear meaning. Changing the meaning does not change the law. If we redefine "sexual relations" to mean only incest is God then forced to allow all other kinds of fornication because that is what he said? meh...it was once heralded as sin to practice interracial marriage. Once the leaders were enlightened and that silly racist dogma was abandoned the actual law from God was not changed. our understanding of it changed. "Oops", says we, "we were running on limited light and understanding. Now that more has come, we'll abandon that which we used to say was God's law". I'm not sure it's as easy as some would suggest. There is plenty of room to wonder, "wait a sec...is this law against Homosexual behavior really from God or did it somehow sneak it's way into the Bible and thus cause the bulk of our western world for most of it's history to think of such as an abomination, helping to drive the current views of the Church (kinda like other topics)?" Edited January 15, 2015 by stemelbow
Kenngo1969 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 All sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin as defined by the law of chastity.And (saying this without the slightest desire to give offense) only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Which leaves us back pretty much where we were when I posted this: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64743-do-our-ward-and-stake-leaders-recognize-the-room-they-have-to-include/?p=1209453279
Recommended Posts