The Pending Collapse Of Lds Membership

[mormonnewb]

Where you have me wrong, is that my saying I would leave is strictly academic. I think it is more likely that Luke Skywalker will come to earth tomorrow and tell us about his prophet, George Lucas, taught us important truths, and call me to be Jedi Knight, than the Brethern deciding that homosexuality is part of God's plan.

 

This must be JUST what saints were saying prior to OD1.  I just re-read it (and the three excerpts from subsequent Woodruff talks).  Not ONCE does Woodruff say, "God has decreed that plural marriage is wrong."  Nor does he repudiate HF's commandment to JS to institute the practice amongst the saints.  He very practically says, "If we keep this up, there will be no church left and if I'm lyin', I'm dyin'!"

 

So while you may think that you're on 100% firm ground in terms of doctrine, that alone is not enough to prevent the Church from changing its stance on an issue.  So to say that it is impossible that HF will instruct his servants to change course for secular reasons flies directly in the face of what HF has already done.  The question is whether you are willing to be faithful to those whom have been called as to lead His Church or whether you are going to draw lines in the sand and say, "I'm willing to follow the Brethren this far, but no further."

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  That is precisely MY position, but I don't think you want to be on MY team.  And quite frankly, I'm not sure the rest of Team Apostate wants you ruining our fun in the TK ("Party over here!  Party over there!"), so hopefully, you will repent of your pride and recommit yourself to following those whom the Lord has called to lead His Church.

[readstoomuch]

You don't find the posters you listed above to be judging? We all judge on this board. It is just a question of agreeing or disagreeing with a judgement. When we disagree we exclaim don't judge. When we agree with the judgement we can be silent about the judgement.

 

Did you not just judge the poster you mentioned?

Well i find some more dogmatic than others. So go ahead and judge on or whatever you are doing. I still liked a lot of the posts. Long week. Good night.

[The Nehor]

I think this post deserves a response.

I am a nobody, who wouldn't dream to define it. But President Harold B. Lee could.

He said:"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator­ . . . you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard" -- it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it."

The scriptures are clear on homosexuality. Abraham, Moses, and Paul have all condemned its practice. Using a modern day prophet's words, then, there is no way a man can undue the scriptural precedent.

What would be more apostate than defiling the Lord's Holy House with an abomination? Mixing a sacred ordinance with a perversion?

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

This is apostasy. This is what would be required to accept homosexuality within the Church. It contradicts scripture. It contradicts modern day prophets. Most importantly it contradicts God's law and his ordinance.

Does not work. There were commandments to travel without purse or scrip but we do anyways because the leadership counters the standard works. We are told in the standard works that barley drinks are good in certain conditions but the leadership prohibits beer drinking. Paul advises not to marry unless you need to to control your lust but now we are told marriage is vital. We go beyond and contradict the standard works all the time due to changing conditions and revelation.

The scriptures are a wonderful guide but they are not infallible and do not prevent God from revealing more. A few scriptures are unlikely to change. God sometimes declares things a standing law forever or gives instructions that last until Jesus returns. Homosexuality does not fall under that condition. The references come from a law we have mostly left behind and from letters by Paul that do not have a universal connotation.

I am NOT saying that practicing homosexuality now is okay in any way, shape, or form. It is currently forbidden. Practicing it and waiting for change is an attempt to anticipate God in something that may or may not ever happen. It is currently sin. If one wants the blessings of God you have to heed the law as it is now no matter how painful that is.

Do I think it is going to change? No. If it changes will I get behind it? Yeah.

Edited January 31, 2015 by The Nehor

[pcarthew]

As i read through this post, I am only sad.  There is nothing in the scriptures that would even remotely support SSM.  There is nothing remotely that would even indicate that LGBT lifestyle is acceptable before the Lord.  It is only the doctrine of man.  I feel no enmity toward any LGBT, in fact my cousin who I love dearly is a prominent LGBT activist.  I also understand that Heavenly Fathers plan is plain and simple, marriage is between a man and women.  The plan of salvation is based on the Family.  Those who abuse or try to interfere with the traditional family will pay a big price for this.  There are some very telling studies on this subject now emerging from Europe where SSM marriage or unions have been allowed and promoted...the results are very poor.  Even in Sweden at present time they are trying pass legislation to  not have sex of a child applied to the birth certificate, but at age 18 the person may "declare" their sexuality.  This is a good example of how we have lost our way.  God has declared through his prophets through all generations the sanctity of marriage.  The Church will never change its stand.  If we become marginalised and vilified by the world so be it.  This was prophesied in the vision of the Tree of Life...the large and spacious building.  Perhaps i have never seen a prophecy and vision becoming so complete, as so many members bow their heads in shame and go and join those who scoff at the teachings of the church.  Also as stated by the Saviour Himself in the 1st section of the doctrine and covenants speaking to members of the Church.

 

"14. And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

 

 15. For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

 16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall."

The church's position is strong as we demand fidelity to covenants regarding chastity to male and female hetrosexuals who are not married, LGBT's are also welcome and must live by the law of Chastity as laid down by our Heavenly Father through his Prophets.  It is the only pattern that has existed since Adam, it still exists today.  Gods church is not governed by the people of popular opinion and never will be.  Those who do not agree will mock on, good luck to them.  The growth of the church or its doctrine will not be determined or changed by them.

[carbon dioxide]

You really believe that this church can never go into apostasy? Why not? Also, that's pretty brave to prophesy that the church CANNOT accept SSM because that WOULD be apostasy and that CANNOT happen?! That's pretty confident! Has this been specifically revealed to you?

Homosexuality is against the law of chastity.   If the Church was to change the Law of Chasity to satisfy gays in the Church, it would be under pressure to change other parts of that law to make other members happy who struggle with aspects of it.  The Church would not be in complete apostasy on this one issue but it would have taken a major step towards it.  Why should we assume for thousands of years the Lord has been against homosexual behavior and it is only recently he has changed his mind?  For what purpose and cause?  A God that can flip his mind on an issue so important and dramatic like that might not be a God worth following at all.  How could we say what is true and what is not true o any issue when the Lord might change his mind again at any moment and go 180 degrees opposite of what he has established.  Perhaps there are situations where stealing is ok like to feed ones family.  We might get a revelation on that.  Once one changes foundational truth, there is complete reason to believe that all other truth can be changed.  We could not testify of anything being true.

Edited January 31, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mormonnewb]

Homosexuality is against the law of chastity.   If the Church was to change the Law of Chasity to satisfy gays in the Church, it would be under pressure to change other parts of that law to make other members happy who struggle with aspects of it.  The Church would not be in complete apostasy on this one issue but it would have taken a major step towards it.  Why should we assume for thousands of years the Lord has been against homosexual behavior and it is only recently he has changed his mind?  For what purpose and cause?  A God that can flip his mind on an issue so important and dramatic like that might not be a God worth following at all.  How could we say what is true and what is not true o any issue when the Lord might change his mind again at any moment and go 180 degrees opposite of what he has established.  Perhaps there are situations where stealing is ok like to feed ones family.  We might get a revelation on that.  Once one changes foundational truth, there is complete reason to believe that all other truth can be changed.  We could not testify of anything being true.

 

Homosexuality is only against the law of chastity because we define marriage as between only a man and a woman.  Change the definition of "marriage" and voila, MARRIED gay couples would be no more in violation of the law than married straight couples.

 

As for how could God be worthy of following if he just changed his mind from time to time.  Well, YOU'LL have to take that up with him when you ask why He allowed polygamy at various times (and not others).  And while you're on the topic, you might want to ask Him why He changed his mind about consecration, everyone moving to Zion, blood atonement, can I stop now?  In fact, on a more general basis, you might want to ask about that whole concept of "continuing revelation."

 

In all seriousness, what is the point of believing in continuing revelation if you don't believe that God's commandments could ever change; at least, not substantially?  Is God so constricted by His word that he can only give the prophets limited inspiration, such as where to place the next mall or what month to release Meet the Mormons 2?

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm certainly willing to work under the assumption that the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are really nothing more than Church "managers."  They hold the keys to the Church office buildings, the temples and to various safe deposit boxes, but as for speaking for the true living God, we should double (and triple) check them against scripture.  That's all fine with me, but I think you should realize that it's going to cause ... cover your eyes, Why Me -- contention, because we're not all going to read scripture the same way.  But so long as we all get to do what is right in our own eyes, that's fine with me.

 

On the other hand, the (former?) members of Team Church have been telling me that we must follow the Prophet; at least, to the extent that the Prophet never receives a commandment that is contrary to our current view of scripture.  Or, more specifically, so long as the Prophet doesn't receive a commandment to deviate from scripture to serve a greater purpose (such as preserving the Church).

 

And all this time, I thought that I was the rebellious one.

[Bobbieaware]

Homosexuality is only against the law of chastity because we define marriage as between only a man and a woman. Change the definition of "marriage" and voila, MARRIED gay couples would be no more in violation of the law than married straight couples.

As for how could God be worthy of following if he just changed his mind from time to time. Well, YOU'LL have to take that up with him when you ask why He allowed polygamy at various times (and not others). And while you're on the topic, you might want to ask Him why He changed his mind about consecration, everyone moving to Zion, blood atonement, can I stop now? In fact, on a more general basis, you might want to ask about that whole concept of "continuing revelation."

In all seriousness, what is the point of believing in continuing revelation if you don't believe that God's commandments could ever change; at least, not substantially? Is God so constricted by His word that he can only give the prophets limited inspiration, such as where to place the next mall or what month to release Meet the Mormons 2?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly willing to work under the assumption that the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are really nothing more than Church "managers." They hold the keys to the Church office buildings, the temples and to various safe deposit boxes, but as for speaking for the true living God, we should double (and triple) check them against scripture. That's all fine with me, but I think you should realize that it's going to cause ... cover your eyes, Why Me -- contention, because we're not all going to read scripture the same way. But so long as we all get to do what is right in our own eyes, that's fine with me.

On the other hand, the (former?) members of Team Church have been telling me that we must follow the Prophet; at least, to the extent that the Prophet never receives a commandment that is contrary to our current view of scripture. Or, more specifically, so long as the Prophet doesn't receive a commandment to deviate from scripture to serve a greater purpose (such as preserving the Church).

And all this time, I thought that I was the rebellious one.

Perhaps the way the problem will be solved in eternity is that one half of a male homosexual couple (vise versa for a female couple) will be voluntarily transformed by the resurrection into a real "seed bearing" woman. That way the couple will be able to have spirit children instead of being barren for all eternity. After all, the continuation of "the seeds" (spirit children) is what eternal marriage is all about, and by the time of the resurrection the couple could be filled with so much divine love that it won't matter anymore if one them becomes outwardly female. This way those on both sides of the debate will be satisfied: For "team church" the formerly male gay couple will be heterosexual, just as it should be. And for "team apostate" the gay couple will still be together, but with just one proviso -- outwardly one of them will no longer look like or have the "equipment" of a man, but the fact that they're actually a gay male couple will be their little secret.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

Homosexuality is only against the law of chastity because we define marriage as between only a man and a woman.  Change the definition of "marriage" and voila, MARRIED gay couples would be no more in violation of the law than married straight couples.

 

WE don't define it that way.  GOD doesn't even get to define it that way.  The eternal structure of family defines it that way (which predates God becoming God - it has always been).  There simply is no alternative eternal family.  Can I prove that 100%?  Only by precedent.

 

As for how could God be worthy of following if he just changed his mind from time to time.  Well, YOU'LL have to take that up with him when you ask why He allowed polygamy at various times (and not others).  And while you're on the topic, you might want to ask Him why He changed his mind about consecration, everyone moving to Zion, blood atonement, can I stop now?  In fact, on a more general basis, you might want to ask about that whole concept of "continuing revelation."

 

God has NEVER changed his mind on correct principle.  He may have added and revoked commands due to our present condition, but he has NEVER changed an eternal law.  The idea that law is just the mind and will of God is incorrect.

 

In all seriousness, what is the point of believing in continuing revelation if you don't believe that God's commandments could ever change; at least, not substantially?  Is God so constricted by His word that he can only give the prophets limited inspiration, such as where to place the next mall or what month to release Meet the Mormons 2?

 

Again, God is not constricted by his word, but by the eternal laws he is required to uphold in order to be a God.  Kind of like when the President swears to uphold the Constitution.  Even he doesn't get to violate the conditions of his office.  Only even more so, because the law God has to obey cannot be changed by the vote of the majority.

[Coreyb]

You may be correct about this. I have the same feeling. The board has changed over the years. Insteand of debating critics we are debating members. If this board was a mirror into the church, the church would be in big trouble. It is disheartening to see active members disparage church leaders etc. Back in the day, I came to this board because of what I read on the internet and what the critics were saying. The board gave me a better understanding of what was being said. But now, it would only cause more confusion and misunderstanding. And I think that this is the problem today on this board: the main critics are active members  Times change which is okay with me but it does make me wonder just what members who come here for help by lurking must think when they read the posts. It would be interesting to research this.

 

Testimonies are indeed weak today. When I listen to testimonies now, I think weakness and not strength because of what I see on this board and lds blogs etc.

Perhaps it should be read as progress that those with critiques of the Church must no longer leave and criticize from outside the fold, but now can be active, believing and critical. I don't see what makes you think you are in a position to judge others "testimonies" as weak. You don't know me, so let me inform you a bit. Now I won't say that I will never apostacize, because brother Brigham said that to say that is to set up a false sense of security. If tomorrow Thomas S. Monson were to call a press conference and say that it is all false, he knows it, so do all the apostles. They are all atheists, only perpetuating the church for the sake of making money. If they all went to jail for fraud, and all over the world Mormons left in tears and anger, leaving the temples and chapels vacant, I would still believe in Mormonism. I would pray to a Mormon God, in the name of the Mormon Jesus. I would still meet with other Mormons, baptize my kids Mormon, and pattern my life after Mormon scriptures. I am in love with With the gospel of Christ as explained/ examined by Mormonism. My testimony does not reside at church headquarters. It does not sway with public relations or depend on the brethren for its life. It cannot be understood or described by a membership number, processed as a widget, registered as a trademark, copyrighted as intellectual property, bartered as a commodity or sold for anything of this world, and only the Lamb's Book of Life can record it in full fidelity. It stands independent within its sphere, and is owned only by myself, and that God upon whose altar I will place it. So maybe to you this testimony is weak, but to me it is stronger than it has ever been.

[Ahab]

Then please, condescend to that thread and enlighten us

I've already done that but still some peoplw reject or misunderstand or misrepresent what the Lord's prophets have said.

It's not as if I can force the ones who are still wrong to believe as I do.

[california boy]

I think this post deserves a response.

 

I am a nobody, who wouldn't dream to define it. But President Harold B. Lee could.

 

He said:"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator­ . . . you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard" -- it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it."

 

The scriptures are clear on homosexuality. Abraham, Moses, and Paul have all condemned its practice. Using a modern day prophet's words, then, there is no way a man can undue the scriptural precedent.

 

What would be more apostate than defiling the Lord's Holy House with an abomination? Mixing a sacred ordinance with a perversion?

 

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

This is apostasy. This is what would be required to accept homosexuality within the Church. It contradicts scripture. It contradicts modern day prophets. Most importantly it contradicts God's law and his ordinance.

 

You are acting like you have scriptural support for your position that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage are not within the law of chastity.  You have NO scriptural support for that position.

 

The Bible says NOTHING about homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.

 

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Book of Mormon says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Doctrine and Covenants says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Pearl of Great Price says NOTHING about homosexual relationships.

 

You are hanging your entire belief in the church becoming apostate on a few scriptures in the Bible that do not even address homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  For such an important issue in your mind, God has been pretty silent about the whole thing.  Yet you claim the church will be in apostasy if church leaders say "The law of Chastity remains as it always has.  Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.  All worthy members will be allowed to marry in the temple"

 

Yes, modern day prophets have spoken out against homosexual marriage.  But there is no scriptural support for their position.  And there is no claim of a revelation from God.  That is a fact.

 

And btw, Abraham did not write ANYTHING about homosexuality.  He is not one of the authors of the Old Testament.  

[rockpond]

You are acting like you have scriptural support for your position that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage are not within the law of chastity.  You have NO scriptural support for that position.

 

The Bible says NOTHING about homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.

 

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Book of Mormon says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Doctrine and Covenants says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Pearl of Great Price says NOTHING about homosexual relationships.

 

You are hanging your entire belief in the church becoming apostate on a few scriptures in the Bible that do not even address homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  For such an important issue in your mind, God has been pretty silent about the whole thing.  Yet you claim the church will be in apostasy if church leaders say "The law of Chastity remains as it always has.  Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.  All worthy members will be allowed to marry in the temple"

 

Yes, modern day prophets have spoken out against homosexual marriage.  But there is no scriptural support for their position.  And there is no claim of a revelation from God.  That is a fact.

 

And btw, Abraham did not write ANYTHING about homosexuality.  He is not one of the authors of the Old Testament.

Well said. Thank you.

[Ahab]

The people who think SSM is or may someday become a good thing just don't understand what makes it a bad thing. And it's not a bad thing just because the Church or other people say it is a bad thing, but what SSM actually is and what it does or does not do that makes it a bad thing. Not that it is bad to love someone of the same sex, or to see someone of the same sex as sexually attractive. It's just bad because it isn't a good thing to do with someone of the same sex because of what it can not lead to.

The people who like it just need to realize it is a bad thing, and why it is.

[why me]

Perhaps it should be read as progress that those with critiques of the Church must no longer leave and criticize from outside the fold, but now can be active, believing and critical. I don't see what makes you think you are in a position to judge others "testimonies" as weak. You don't know me, so let me inform you a bit.

In the past on this board, there was a clear line between critic and member. Now we are short of critics who were members or who didn't agree with the lds church. Now the critics are the lds. If I came to this board looking for lds support I would get both support and the critic who is lds. I would be just a little confused. Also, lurkers looking in would most likely get the impression that the mormons are a little confused about their faith and can't seem to agree on anything. Not a good message at all.

 

Testimonies are weak when a piece of history can destroy all the spiritual experiences that one had. I know of no other church where this happens as it does in the lds church. I know of no catholic who left over history etc. But for the lds, regardless of the spiritual experiences, quite a few leave. Is it a weakness of testimony?

[Bobbieaware]

You are acting like you have scriptural support for your position that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage are not within the law of chastity.  You have NO scriptural support for that position.

 

The Bible says NOTHING about homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.

 

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Book of Mormon says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Doctrine and Covenants says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

 

The Pearl of Great Price says NOTHING about homosexual relationships.

 

You are hanging your entire belief in the church becoming apostate on a few scriptures in the Bible that do not even address homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  For such an important issue in your mind, God has been pretty silent about the whole thing.  Yet you claim the church will be in apostasy if church leaders say "The law of Chastity remains as it always has.  Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.  All worthy members will be allowed to marry in the temple"

 

Yes, modern day prophets have spoken out against homosexual marriage.  But there is no scriptural support for their position.  And there is no claim of a revelation from God.  That is a fact.

 

And btw, Abraham did not write ANYTHING about homosexuality.  He is not one of the authors of the Old Testament.

The near endless capacity of the human mind to rationalize in defense of the indefensible.

[Ahab]

You are acting like you have scriptural support for your position that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage are not within the law of chastity. You have NO scriptural support for that position.

The Bible says NOTHING about homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexual relationships

The Book of Mormon says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

The Doctrine and Covenants says NOTHING about homosexual relationships

The Pearl of Great Price says NOTHING about homosexual relationships.

You are hanging your entire belief in the church becoming apostate on a few scriptures in the Bible that do not even address homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage. For such an important issue in your mind, God has been pretty silent about the whole thing. Yet you claim the church will be in apostasy if church leaders say "The law of Chastity remains as it always has. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden. All worthy members will be allowed to marry in the temple"

Yes, modern day prophets have spoken out against homosexual marriage. But there is no scriptural support for their position. And there is no claim of a revelation from God. That is a fact.

And btw, Abraham did not write ANYTHING about homosexuality. He is not one of the authors of the Old Testament.

1. Presidents of the Church with keys are entitled to revelation beyond what is in the standard works and their teachings should be regarded just as highly if not more highly than the teachings in the standard works.

2. They teach that SSM is wrong and that sexual relations between people of the same sex is wrong.

3. There is no teaching in the standard works or by any President of the Church that teaches that sexual relations between people of the same sex is good or that marriage makes it good

[california boy]

1. Presidents of the Church with keys are entitled to revelation beyond what is in the standard works and their teachings should be regarded just as highly if not more highly than the teachings in the standard works.

2. They teach that SSM is wrong and that sexual relations between people of the same sex is wrong.

3. There is no teaching in the standard works or by any President of the Church that teaches that sexual relations between people of the same sex is good or that marriage makes it good

 

I completely agree with your statements.  Never claimed anything different.  The only thing my post pointed out is that there is no scriptural support for church leaders condemning SSM.  And there is no modern day revelation from God about SSM.  Those are just the facts.  It is not conjecture on whether SSM is acceptable or not.  

[Rob Osborn]

I completely agree with your statements.  Never claimed anything different.  The only thing my post pointed out is that there is no scriptural support for church leaders condemning SSM.  And there is no modern day revelation from God about SSM.  Those are just the facts.  It is not conjecture on whether SSM is acceptable or not.

Then it is obvious that you do not believe in the prophet and his apostles that they can and DO reveal the words of God to us.

[Rob Osborn]

In the past on this board, there was a clear line between critic and member. Now we are short of critics who were members or who didn't agree with the lds church. Now the critics are the lds. If I came to this board looking for lds support I would get both support and the critic who is lds. I would be just a little confused. Also, lurkers looking in would most likely get the impression that the mormons are a little confused about their faith and can't seem to agree on anything. Not a good message at all.

 

Testimonies are weak when a piece of history can destroy all the spiritual experiences that one had. I know of no other church where this happens as it does in the lds church. I know of no catholic who left over history etc. But for the lds, regardless of the spiritual experiences, quite a few leave. Is it a weakness of testimony?

Our church is the focal point of the world. Its kind of like Lebron James, the NBA superstar, when he has a questionable game the whole world wonders what is going on and everyone debates why and as such he gains or loses followers based on all the talk and debate. But, if some other superstar, but not under such focus, someone like Kevin Garnett, has a bad game no one really seems to mind or care and his followers will always remain faithful.

Another analogy- I paint show cars for a living. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. But in the end it is beautiful. The downside is is that if a speck of dirt or debris lands in the paint as a flaw while it was being sprayed it tends to stick out like a sore thumb in the end. It never fails that a customer will come back and complain that a piece of debris the size of 1-2 microns is in their paint job and they didnt pay for that. If I didnt do such a nice job though, they would have never noticed or cared in the first place.

And so it is with the church- we are under such focus because we have so much more doctrine on every matter than any other church that it also brings to attention the little flaws that cause them to stick out more and why people lose faith.

[Rob Osborn]

Homosexuality is only against the law of chastity because we define marriage as between only a man and a woman.  Change the definition of "marriage" and voila, MARRIED gay couples would be no more in violation of the law than married straight couples.

 

As for how could God be worthy of following if he just changed his mind from time to time.  Well, YOU'LL have to take that up with him when you ask why He allowed polygamy at various times (and not others).  And while you're on the topic, you might want to ask Him why He changed his mind about consecration, everyone moving to Zion, blood atonement, can I stop now?  In fact, on a more general basis, you might want to ask about that whole concept of "continuing revelation."

 

In all seriousness, what is the point of believing in continuing revelation if you don't believe that God's commandments could ever change; at least, not substantially?  Is God so constricted by His word that he can only give the prophets limited inspiration, such as where to place the next mall or what month to release Meet the Mormons 2?

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm certainly willing to work under the assumption that the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are really nothing more than Church "managers."  They hold the keys to the Church office buildings, the temples and to various safe deposit boxes, but as for speaking for the true living God, we should double (and triple) check them against scripture.  That's all fine with me, but I think you should realize that it's going to cause ... cover your eyes, Why Me -- contention, because we're not all going to read scripture the same way.  But so long as we all get to do what is right in our own eyes, that's fine with me.

 

On the other hand, the (former?) members of Team Church have been telling me that we must follow the Prophet; at least, to the extent that the Prophet never receives a commandment that is contrary to our current view of scripture.  Or, more specifically, so long as the Prophet doesn't receive a commandment to deviate from scripture to serve a greater purpose (such as preserving the Church).

 

And all this time, I thought that I was the rebellious one.

Homosexual behavior is against the church because it in itself is a sin. This has nothing to do with how we define marriage. Even if we were to somehow make SSM recognizable by the church we would be guilty of two offenses rather than one because both homosexuality and same sex marriage are both wrong.

[Ferdinand55]

Samus. She is the bomb.

She's the power bomb, if ya know what I'm saying

[Tacenda]

In the past on this board, there was a clear line between critic and member. Now we are short of critics who were members or who didn't agree with the lds church. Now the critics are the lds. If I came to this board looking for lds support I would get both support and the critic who is lds. I would be just a little confused. Also, lurkers looking in would most likely get the impression that the mormons are a little confused about their faith and can't seem to agree on anything. Not a good message at all.

 

Testimonies are weak when a piece of history can destroy all the spiritual experiences that one had. I know of no other church where this happens as it does in the lds church. I know of no catholic who left over history etc. But for the lds, regardless of the spiritual experiences, quite a few leave. Is it a weakness of testimony?

I think you have to thank the internet and the church being open with more church historical facts such as their recent essays covered on LDS.org for that.  If I didn't know better by looking at the topics listed on this site I would think this board was anti, so I see what you mean.  

 

I remember reading this board many years ago.  I was always amazed at the intelligent conversation and thought what an idiot I would look like if I even dared to try carrying on a conversation.  It seemed that there were scholars and scriptorians and very staunch LDS members on here for the most part.  But when the board prompted me to sign in and not just lurk, that's how I began posting.  I probably should have just stayed in a safe place and continued just reading, but I couldn't resist coming on and asking for answers.  My first scuffles were with you and ERayR, Cal etc. Oh, and one guy who was banned.  Can never forget that guy.  But his avatar escapes me at the moment.

 

Maybe this board is to help people like me, can't believe I'm still around and haven't been banned.  This board is such a good place because people can converse about all religions, feelings & doubts and everything under the sun, yahoo!!  But on other boards they are more specific or all one way or the other way, that's why I love it here so much.  

 

Maybe it will swing back to how it was before, Why Me.  Maybe the members who struggle can move on from here, but they will probably not find a better place that isn't as neutral as this. Because IMO places like NOM, Mormon Discussion, Ex Mormon Reddit, etc. are too far gone to be a good fit for those still in the church but struggle.  NOM & StayLDS are close but they don't quite cut it for me.  

 

This board is like a family, where you have the parental units and the child units, haha.  The parental units will keep you honest through tough love, the child units will keep being unruly but all the while trying to find their place in life and on the board.  Whereas the other boards don't have that parental love going and sibling thing going.  Is this just the weirdest analogy ever?!?!  But it's why I love it on this board.  Although, I'm sure many would want people like me to just go away so they can continue hashing out the big questions about the Universe and Mormonism!

 

I'm sorry if this derails, please let's not talk about anything that might derail it.  

Edited January 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[why me]

I think you have to thank the internet and the church being open with more church historical facts such as their recent essays covered on LDS.org for that.  If I didn't know better by looking at the topics listed on this site I would think this board was anti, so I see what you mean.  

 

I remember reading this board many years ago.  I was always amazed at the intelligent conversation and thought what an idiot I would look like if I even dared to try carrying on a conversation.  It seemed that there were scholars and scriptorians and very staunch LDS members on here for the most part.  But when the board prompted me to sign in and not just lurk, that's how I began posting.  I probably should have just stayed in a safe place and continued just reading, but I couldn't resist coming on and asking for answers.  My first scuffles were with you and ERayR, Cal etc. Oh, and one guy who was banned.  Can never forget that guy.  But his avatar escapes me at the moment.

 

Maybe this board is to help people like me, can't believe I'm still around and haven't been banned.  This board is such a good place because people can converse about all religions, feelings & doubts and everything under the sun, yahoo!!  But on other boards they are more specific or all one way or the other way, that's why I love it here so much.  

 

Maybe it will swing back to how it was before, Why Me.  Maybe the members who struggle can move on from here, but they will probably not find a better place that isn't as neutral as this. Because IMO places like NOM, Mormon Discussion, Ex Mormon Reddit, etc. are too far gone to be a good fit for those still in the church but struggle.  NOM & StayLDS are close but they don't quite cut it for me.  

 

This board is like a family, where you have the parental units and the child units, haha.  The parental units will keep you honest through tough love, the child units will keep being unruly but all the while trying to find their place in life and on the board.  Whereas the other boards don't have that parental love going and sibling thing going.  Is this just the weirdest analogy ever?!?!  But it's why I love it on this board.  Although, I'm sure many would want people like me to just go away so they can continue hashing out the big questions about the Universe and Mormonism!

 

I'm sorry if this derails, please let's not talk about anything that might derail it.  

The board has always been for people like yourself and for others who are looking for answers. But the board is now basically a debate board between members who are second guessing the leaders and the members. It is quite different now. Before the debates between apologists and critics were quite interesting and intense. But now the critics have left. There is no reason for them to be here since the active members are now the critics, debating with other members. The board is still the same but the players are different. This is definitely now a testimony building board. And that is okay too. So, we have these debates about SSM, blacks and the priesthood, women being ordained, whether leaders are inspired etc by active members who seem to disagree with each other. And the disagreements are not that friendly. As bob dylan sang: the times they are a changing.

 

But where have all the critics gone? Looking in the mirror, I see only us mormons. Thus the pending collapse. I have seen faithful members posting on this board, suddenly become critics. How this happened is anyone's guess. I remember when you came on this board...I liked you very much. And I still do. Don't sell yourself short...you are fine.

Edited January 31, 2015 by why me

[california boy]

Then it is obvious that you do not believe in the prophet and his apostles that they can and DO reveal the words of God to us.

 

So now you fall back on living prophets and apostles.  Probably a logical thing to do.  But I want to remind you that NO prophet has claimed to have had a revelation on SSM.

 

I also want to point out that for the first time in the 150+ history of the church, the prophet and apostles are commanding members to be celibate RATHER THAN GET MARRIED. (you did see the part about rather than get married right)

 

Up until this point in the entire history of the church, the prophets and apostles have not just urged, but commanded young men to not put off marriage.  Did these apostles and prophet get this celibate rather than marriage from a revelation from God?  You tell me.  There has never been any claim from them about this policy coming from revelation.

 

So if the church is relying solely on the opinion of current prophet and apostles, there is not much assurance that they have this right at all.  Those same leaders would be the first to tell you that the opinion of past leaders have not always been correct.

 

You believe their words solely because you want to believe their words.  That is perfectly fine and reasonable.  But let us not pretend that their opinion comes from revelation.  So to sum up.  There is NO scripture against SSM.  And there is no revelation from God on SSM.  And there is no revelation from God on telling gays they should be celibate.  There are scriptures counseling that "it is not good for man to be alone"  And there are plenty of statements from prophets encouraging members to marry.  Yeah I know they were not talking about SSM.  This is a relative new possibility.  Perhaps they jumped the gun on the direction God wants them to take.  I don't know if they are right or wrong.  But I don't claim to know.  Are you willing to condemn countless gay members to a life of loneliness with no human companionship based on the best guess of the prophet and apostles without any scripture or revelation to support this idea?  Probably.  It is a reasonable position for you to take.  But don't expect me to.  That seems just as reasonable to me.  This whole issue is not as settled as you wish it to be.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps it should be read as progress that those with critiques of the Church must no longer leave and criticize from outside the fold, but now can be active, believing and critical. 

 

I really do not see it as progress. While I want the weak in the gospel to stay in the hopes of being strengthened the criticizing tend to weaken, not strengthen, testimonies. God help us all if the criticizers are seen as equal with the faithful. We want the criticizers to stay in the hopes that they can repent and reconcile themselves with God, not because we need their valuable critical input or because they provide any kind of service through their criticism. If we start seeing being a criticizer as an end-state equal to all others within the Church we will be in trouble.

 

I doubt it will happen though. If it starts to I expect God will throw some trials our way and like the criticizers did not go west with the saints in the 1800s they will be left behind again and faith will be placed back on the pedestal it belongs.