A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[stemelbow]

Its one of the covenants we make in the temple.  We are willing to give our lives for the Church if necessary.   I don't conceive of Captain Moroni saying the Lamanites 'Go right ahead guys.  Impose your will upon us.  Defile everything we stand for and believe."  I see Capt. Moroni fighting for the rights of his liberties.   He did not seek out a fight but was willing to fight for the rights of his family and his God if someone brought the fight to him.

What you describe is not in any way bringing the fight to the Church.

[bluebell]

I disagree. To say it is a sin is conclusive and unbending. To leave it open is to allow God to speak on the matter, rather than trying to speak for HIm.

 

To say something is a sin is no more or less conclusive and unbending than to say that something isn't a sin.

 

Neither option leaves it open or allows for ambiguity on the issue.  

[mormonnewb]

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches.  "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well."  Take this far enough and you've changed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a place you go to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ into just another church where you go to have a feel good hour and drink coffee afterwards.

 

From your keyboard to God's ears

[why me]

In yesterday's press conference, Elder Oaks said:

 

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser."

 

Preach, Elder!  Preach!  Believe it or not, I agree 100% with Elder Oaks.  And I hope it now means that Mormons won't be forced from their Church employment or made to suffer personal loss because they raise their voice in opposition to the Church or lend their support to groups like OW.

The line is crossed when one becomes an advocate of such policies. So, if you decide to advocate for OW you may end up in the SPs office. Or if you advocated eternal marriage sealings for gay couples, you may find yourself in the SPs office. Or if you advocate for polygamy, you may end up in the SPs office. However, you can have your own personal opinion which was the case before too.

Edited January 28, 2015 by why me

[why me]

But you said that if the church allowed SSM you would leave it.  So what does that say about holding to the rod?  You're not going to trust that God is speaking through a current prophet?  You'd jump out of the boat over it?  Start your own church maybe.  See what I'm getting at?  You are the one that gave it plausibility that if the church did that you and your family would hightail it out.  My words.  

Well, it would be a tough one to swallow for many. Years and years we heard about the men and women in holy matrimony. We also have the Proclamation of the Family. It would be difficult to get out of that one. So, one can assume that if the church began to advocate for same sex marriage, something may be wrong.

[mormonnewb]

I can't say what the Church will do in decades to come but I can say what my and my family (immediate and extended) will do.  If the Church was to ever accept SSM and allow members to practice it, it would be great evidence that the Church has taken a huge step towards apostasy.  I fully believe a great schism in the Church would occur and based on the views of my immediate and extended family are, we would chose to follow what we believe to be true that SSM is pure wickedness.  We would become members of the division of the Church that continued to see it that way. 

 

There were many saints who said just this about the priesthood ban in August 1978.  Yet, according to the reports I hear nowadays, they "pulled their cars to the side of the road to weep tears of joy" when the ban was lifted one month later.

 

Sooner or later, the Church will call your bluff and I STRONGLY suspect you'll be firmly on Team Weeping.

[Ahab]

I disagree. To say it is a sin is conclusive and unbending. To leave it open is to allow God to speak on the matter, rather than trying to speak for HIm.

Her point was that it wouldn't be right to say it is NOT sin, because God hadn't said it was or it was not, just as it wouldn't be right to say it is sin, again because God hadn't said it was or was not.

It's all on a personal basis with God, though. God can tell someone that something is a sin while someone else doesn't get that memo, so the one who didn't get it wouldn't know it is sin.

Something is a sin only when God has told you, personally, that it is a sin. Not all people who claim to speak for God are speaking for God, so you're supposed to ask God personally.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Ahab

[Rob Osborn]

I wish people would stop comparing blacks and the priesthood with SSM. All it does is seek to drive a wedge between faith and leadership. Anti-Mormons who once were Mormons are now the worst threat to Gods kingdom. Be careful, even Lucifer at one time was on Gods side in high position of authority.

[Buckeye]

I wish people would stop comparing blacks and the priesthood with SSM. All it does is seek to drive a wedge between faith and leadership. Anti-Mormons who once were Mormons are now the worst threat to Gods kingdom. Be careful, even Lucifer at one time was on Gods side in high position of authority.

 

I wish the comparison between now and 1978 would also stop. Unfortunately, it is going to continue until the church explains exactly what happened with the racial priesthood ban. Right now, the official position is "we don't know." This may be accurate, but it removes any ground for members to argue that todays events are different from those of 40 years ago. How can members says "Thing 1 and Thing 2 are nothing alike" if we can't even define what Thing 1 is?

[Rob Osborn]

I wish the comparison between now and 1978 would also stop. Unfortunately, it is going to continue until the church explains exactly what happened with the racial priesthood ban. Right now, the official position is "we don't know." This may be accurate, but it removes any ground for members to argue that todays events are different from those of 40 years ago. How can members says "Thing 1 and Thing 2 are nothing alike" if we can't even define what Thing 1 is?

But where does it stop? Those who honestly think the church will change their stance on homosexual marriage need to wake up and get into reality and stop a dreaming.

[ksfisher]

Exactly. That's the problem I see with the Church coming out and pronouncing 125 years worth of teaching by prophets/apostles as wrong.

 

There is a difference, however, between me saying the church is wrong on an issue and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve saying the church is changing a position.  The First Presidency has the authority to make changes to church doctrine and policy when inspired by God to do so.  While I, on the other hand, have the authority to shoot my mouth off whenever I please.

[Mystery Meat]

I am dumber for having read this thread. 

[thesometimesaint]

There were many saints who said just this about the priesthood ban in August 1978.  Yet, according to the reports I hear nowadays, they "pulled their cars to the side of the road to weep tears of joy" when the ban was lifted one month later.

 

Sooner or later, the Church will call your bluff and I STRONGLY suspect you'll be firmly on Team Weeping.

 

I didn't agree with the Priesthood ban in 1971 when I became a member. But was unwilling to throw out the good parts of Church because of that disagreement. This is either the Lords Church or it isn't. It has never been The Church of Joseph Smith/Brigham Young/ Bruce R. McConkie or even The Church of TheSomeTimeSaint.

 

If I live long enough for the Lord to tell the Saints why the Ban. I'll be satisfied. If he returns before then I'll ask him then what was the reason for the Ban. If I die before then I'll ask him when I see him.

Edited January 28, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

To say something is a sin is no more or less conclusive and unbending than to say that something isn't a sin.

 

Neither option leaves it open or allows for ambiguity on the issue.

But nobody said it was not a sin. It was only suggested that God never said it was a sin. The question then is if God never says it, what do we do? Assume it is a sin, or something else?

[Mystery Meat]

But nobody said it was not a sin. It was only suggested that God never said it was a sin. The question then is if God never says it, what do we do? Assume it is a sin, or something else?

 

But he has so said, through His servants the prophets.

[Calm]

"There were many saints who said just this about the priesthood ban in August 1978"

And you know this how?

[why me]

There were many saints who said just this about the priesthood ban in August 1978.  Yet, according to the reports I hear nowadays, they "pulled their cars to the side of the road to weep tears of joy" when the ban was lifted one month later.

 

Sooner or later, the Church will call your bluff and I STRONGLY suspect you'll be firmly on Team Weeping.

Here we go again...back to the priesthood ban. I knew that the conversation would drift there. No one knows the future. However, I wouldn't advocate that the church changes its stance on gay marriage and allow gays to be married in church or the temple. What do the baptists say about gay marriage?'

[bluebell]

But nobody said it was not a sin. It was only suggested that God never said it was a sin. The question then is if God never says it, what do we do? Assume it is a sin, or something else?

There are many members who don't believe it is a sin despite what our leaders have said because "God hasn't specifically said it is a sin."

It's faulty reasoning.

[The Nehor]

I am dumber for having read this thread. 

 

Same

[Pahoran]

Mormonewb wrote:
 

In yesterday's press conference, Elder Oaks said:



"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser."



Preach, Elder! Preach! Believe it or not, I agree 100% with Elder Oaks. And I hope it now means that Mormons won't be forced from their Church employment or made to suffer personal loss because they raise their voice in opposition to the Church or lend their support to groups like OW. Because, if not, it seems like the Church wants to have its cake and eat it too. Mormons with the "correct" views should be shielded from the consequences of holding those views, but the Church is perfectly free to impose whatever consequences it likes on those with the "wrong" views. So much for religious "freedom."



And I know that some of you will say, "The Church is a private entity and can do whatever it pleases." And, of course, you're right. But Elder Oaks seeks to protects opponents of SSM from the actions of their private employers. For instance, Elder Oaks specifically mentioned the Mozilla CEO who was forced to resign because he had donated money to support the passage of Prop 8. This man was not forced to step down by the government, but by private actors (e.g., shareholders, customers, LGBT activities). So why should those private actors respect the Mozilla CEO's opposing viewpoint and allow him to keep his position in their organization, but the Church can continue to fire employees or discipline members for expressing an opposing viewpoint on the same question?



It would seem to me that what's good for the gay should be good for the salamander. If the Church wants other private actors to respect its dissenting views, then it should start respecting dissenting views within its own ranks. And if you say that the Church can not possibly continue to function with so much dissension in the ranks, then why do you think a corporation can operate under the same conditions? If people who have the light of Christ and are operating under the power of the priesthood can not exercise grace towards those with dissenting viewpoints, then how can we expect those "heathens" to extend us a grace that we can't even muster for our own brothers and sisters?

So basically, if you found out that an NAACP employee was a closet klukker, you'd expect that fellow to keep his job?

You are unable to grasp the very material difference between someone having an unpopular opinion on public policy, and someone opposing his employer's core mission?

Are you really that obtuse?

Please tell us you're only pretending, Noob.

Regards,
Pahoran

[stemelbow]

There are many members who don't believe it is a sin despite what our leaders have said because "God hasn't specifically said it is a sin."

It's faulty reasoning.

I wouldn't go that far, surely. Let the individual man think and feel as he must. I shouldn't speak for their reasoning though. Maybe they have reason to believe that God has spoken to them. I leave them that possibility.

[Pahoran]

Rockpond wrote:

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

No.

It will not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

There were many saints who said just this about the priesthood ban in August 1978.  Yet, according to the reports I hear nowadays, they "pulled their cars to the side of the road to weep tears of joy" when the ban was lifted one month later.

You are so wrapped up in your idiotic stereotypes that you can't even get your dates right.

The revelation on the Priesthood was announced in June of 1978.

And the rest of the above is wrong as well. I think you completely made it up. I was a serving missionary in 1978. I have never, even once in my life, met a Latter-day Saint who thought the former Priesthood ban would never be lifted. It was always expected to end someday; we just didn't know when.

 

Sooner or later, the Church will call your bluff and I STRONGLY suspect you'll be firmly on Team Weeping.

That's wishful thinking at best.

And utter nonsense to boot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

If the Church wants other private actors to respect its dissenting views, then it should start respecting dissenting views within its own ranks.

The Church doesn't dissent with regards to these issues, and it's voice in the public square is not a form of dissenting. "Dissent" is to express an opinion that is at variance with one previously, commonly, or officially expressed--the Church is consistent. "Dissension" is a disagreement that causes the people in a group to argue about something that is important to them--the Church isn't arguing about or over these issues. NOTE: definitions from online Marion-Webster. However, when members engage in disagreement with the leaders of their group with the spirit of contention and disputation, that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and leads to invitations to avoid such, or to disciplinary action when it isn't avoided.

[mormonnewb]

We'll concede that you have the right to commit the sin of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex as long as we get to keep the right to express our religious convictions to you.

Or at least that is how I see what is going on.

The Church seems to be taking it one step further. We not only have the right to express our religious convictions, but we should have no adverse consequences from that expression; even from private actors. I think most people would agree that the government should not imprison, fine or otherwise punish people for expressing opposition to SSM. However, to ask that consumers not boycott opponents of SSM or that companies should not fire those who expressions upset their customers and shareholders is debatable. It's further debatable whether governments should give a religious exemption to generally-applicable anti-discrimination laws. Thus, privileging religious belief over secular belief.