General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?

[Pahoran]

Of course he didn't suggest that anyone lie in TR interviews but I understand that you interpret it that way.

And I "interpret" it that way because I can read plain English.

You may spin it however you please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Well what you have written here certainly doesn't describe me.  Nor does it describe many other believing LDS who feel as I do.

 

But I understand that it is easier for you if you conclude that all faithful church members think just like you.

I know perfectly well that not all faithful Church members think just like me. On a great many subjects.

But it would be easier for an authentic faithful Church member to contemplate, with equanimity, participating in a plot to assassinate the Prophet than to so smugly fantasize about apostate "ordinances" to solemnise abominations in the House of the Lord.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You are done here.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I know perfectly well that not all faithful Church members think just like me. On a great many subjects.

But it would be easier for an authentic faithful Church member to contemplate, with equanimity, participating in a plot to assassinate the Prophet than to so smugly fantasize about apostate "ordinances" to solemnise abominations in the House of the Lord.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Given that the top leadership of the church has moderated their language and given that you hold them in such high esteem, it might behoove you to moderate yours. Can you find the most recent quote from a general authority that describes homosexual relations as an abomination? Here is a place to start:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Amormonsandgays.org%20abomination

 

Perhaps you should follow their lead and call it a grievous or serious sin?

[Scott Lloyd]

Given that the top leadership of the church has moderated their language and given that you hold them in such high esteem, it might behoove you to moderate yours. Can you find the most recent quote from a general authority that describes homosexual relations as an abomination? Here is a place to start:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Amormonsandgays.org%20abomination

 

Perhaps you should follow their lead and call it a grievous or serious sin?

abomination = anything greatly disliked or abhorred.

 

grievous = very severe or serious.

 

Sin is never a good thing, and a sin that is serious or grievous would reasonably be regarded as one that was greatly disliked or abhorred.

 

I have to say I don't see a great deal of difference here, especially in a scriptural or doctrinal context.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Hold on, Scott. I think I have a quote...I need to find the source when the complete texts are published. The key word is "composition."

Is it a quote for this thread or the other one?

[Russell C McGregor]

I know perfectly well that not all faithful Church members think just like me. On a great many subjects.

But it would be easier for an authentic faithful Church member to contemplate, with equanimity, participating in a plot to assassinate the Prophet than to so smugly fantasize about apostate "ordinances" to solemnise abominations in the House of the Lord.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You are done here.

Since I cannot start new topics, I shall append my question to this one.

Does anyone know where I can find a discussion forum that actually allows discussion of LDS topics from a perspective that is recognisably held by faithful Latter-day Saints?

One where every second thread on the front page isn't a "Gay marriage" thread?

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

Thanks,

Russell

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since I cannot start new topics, I shall append my question to this one.

Does anyone know where I can find a discussion forum that actually allows discussion of LDS topics from a perspective that is recognisably held by faithful Latter-day Saints?

One where every second thread on the front page isn't a "Gay marriage" thread?

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

Thanks,

Russell

I share your same frustration. This board has been hijacked by progressives and sissies.

 

If its not gay something, then it is global warming. If it is not that then it is about hour unfair we treat women.

 

What happened to the good old days of being able to discuss actual church doctrine and make point that might cut.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

 

Espousing authentic LDS doctrine here is not a banning offense.  Pahoran was obviously banned for *how* he chose to express his "authenticity", if you will.

 

I would encourage you to stay and to participate in the threads that do focus on other issues (aside from gay marriage)... by participating you'll elevate those to the top of the queue.

[stemelbow]

The Church went from espousing a "non-traditional" definition of marriage (polygamy, polyandray, et al) to a very traditional definition in a very short time, at one point.

Wouldn't be surprised to see changes a coming, even if we are digging in our heels now. In 1888, many members, which comprised the Church, dug their heels in supporting a non-traditional definition of marriage. of course when the change to the traditional definition came along, many members didn't want to go along with it. it took a while for members to get on board. It's interesting to think what we potentially have ahead of us.

[Gray]

The Church went from espousing a "non-traditional" definition of marriage (polygamy, polyandray, et al) to a very traditional definition in a very short time, at one point.

Wouldn't be surprised to see changes a coming, even if we are digging in our heels now. In 1888, many members, which comprised the Church, dug their heels in supporting a non-traditional definition of marriage. of course when the change to the traditional definition came along, many members didn't want to go along with it. it took a while for members to get on board. It's interesting to think what we potentially have ahead of us.

 

 

The change toward "traditional marriage" did inspire the growth of a lot of offshoot groups that wanted to keep practicing alternate forms of marriage. I don't doubt the same thing would happen if/when the church starts recognizing gay marriage. Some members seem certain that no authentic revelation could ever authorize that. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Since I cannot start new topics, I shall append my question to this one.

Does anyone know where I can find a discussion forum that actually allows discussion of LDS topics from a perspective that is recognisably held by faithful Latter-day Saints?

One where every second thread on the front page isn't a "Gay marriage" thread?

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

Thanks,

Russell

If you want to start a new topic, shoot me a PM or an email, and I'll do it for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

So we are nearly five days removed from general conference now, and I think it's safe to say no one is going to have anything to contribute, as per the OP, by way of indication from the conference that the Church is being dislodged in any measure or degree from its stance regarding homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage."

 

On the other hand, as the counterpart thread to this shows, there was much in the way of content that sustains and supports that stance.

 

Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick, and of the predicted 40 years before the Church would embrace grievous sexual sin and begin to solemnize it in the temples, there is precisely this much time left:

 

39 years, 10 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 9 minutes and 18 seconds.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since I cannot start new topics, I shall append my question to this one.

Does anyone know where I can find a discussion forum that actually allows discussion of LDS topics from a perspective that is recognisably held by faithful Latter-day Saints?

One where every second thread on the front page isn't a "Gay marriage" thread?

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

Thanks,

Russell

If you find one, let me know. I might follow you there.

[ttribe]

Since I cannot start new topics, I shall append my question to this one.

Does anyone know where I can find a discussion forum that actually allows discussion of LDS topics from a perspective that is recognisably held by faithful Latter-day Saints?

One where every second thread on the front page isn't a "Gay marriage" thread?

One where espousing authentic LDS doctrine is not a banning offence?

Thanks,

Russell

 

 

I share your same frustration. This board has been hijacked by progressives and sissies.

 

If its not gay something, then it is global warming. If it is not that then it is about hour unfair we treat women.

 

What happened to the good old days of being able to discuss actual church doctrine and make point that might cut.

 

 

If you find one, let me know. I might follow you there.

 

 

LDS.net?  I haven't posted there in years, but I recall them being about as "Pro-LDS" as it seemed possible at the time.

Edited April 9, 2015 by ttribe

[Teancum]

If you want to start a new topic, shoot me a PM or an email, and I'll do it for you.

 

Great way to circumvent the rules.....

[Teancum]

So we are nearly five days removed from general conference now, and I think it's safe to say no one is going to have anything to contribute, as per the OP, by way of indication from the conference that the Church is being dislodged in any measure or degree from its stance regarding homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage."

 

On the other hand, as the counterpart thread to this shows, there was much in the way of content that sustains and supports that stance.

 

Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick, and of the predicted 40 years before the Church would embrace grievous sexual sin and begin to solemnize it in the temples, there is precisely this much time left:

 

39 years, 10 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 9 minutes and 18 seconds.

 

Scott I am with you on this. People who equate the priesthood ban with the Church some day allowing same sex message really miss the issue.  While I think the priesthood ban was man made and an error there was always language that opened the door for it to change.

 

Not so with same sex marriage. It flies in the face if core LDS doctrine of family, what the eternities look like forward and back as well as exaltation and godhood.  It is not going to happen based on the theology of the Church.