Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Debacle. There is no point to discuss. You know, I find it interesting that at church, everyone always seems in agreement on where we stand as far as marriage and morality. The only dissent I hear comes from this board and others like it as if these places just attract all the dissenters. at church like other places people might not agree but are too afraid of saying anything, its a social psychology in action., half the class thinks it but no one says anything or know is anyone else would agree with them and so nothing is done or people might the wrong impression that everyone is in agreement
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Debacle. There is no point to discuss. You know, I find it interesting that at church, everyone always seems in agreement on where we stand as far as marriage and morality. The only dissent I hear comes from this board and others like it as if these places just attract all the dissenters. Most of the "dissenters" I know want to do their part of make church a spiritually uplifting experience. Dissent, obviously, doesn't help - so they leave it at home. 1
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Its rather simple. SSM goes against church policy. The question you have to ask is if you want to side with or side against the church. I imagine that if you decide to disagree and go on to promote SSM, then you probably are on the road to apostasy. Could be, but it's possible such a one is not on the road to apostasy. This brought to my mind the example of priesthood restriction. There was a time when the restriction was on, leaders promoted the causes for the restriction. A member might well have disagreed with the cause, and perhaps the restriction itself. Was such a member on the road to apostasy? I wouldn't think that such a person necessarily was on such a road. it could end up being further light and knowledge will be revealed to the Church one day and it'll cause a shift in thought much like that which happened in 1978. 1
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Most of the "dissenters" I know want to do their part of make church a spiritually uplifting experience. Dissent, obviously, doesn't help - so they leave it at home. I'm not sure "dissenting, obviously, doesn't help". I think it can help, quite a bit. It helps us recognize and understand, explore and conclude. Honestly I'm not sure keeping quiet about issues that may be a huge part of people's spiritual welfare is the tact we ought to encourage here. We're supposed to be getting together to discuss the welfare of our souls. Once we start putting limits on what people may express when it comes to the welfare of their souls, we're really limiting our Church experience. 1
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I see the purpose of the special reading of the letter (in separate meetings with adults and youth) as further reinforcement of the church's current position on the matter. They're losing the hearts and minds of a growing number of members on this issue. I assume they realize this. The letter and attachments... the request for a special reading (even though the letter contains nothing new) is the continued attempt to get members to stop "defecting" on this issue. 2
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I see the purpose of the special reading of the letter (in separate meetings with adults and youth) as further reinforcement of the church's current position on the matter. They're losing the hearts and minds of a growing number of members on this issue. I assume they realize this. The letter and attachments... the request for a special reading (even though the letter contains nothing new) is the continued attempt to get members to stop "defecting" on this issue. Sure. Likely. I'm curious what might happen to people who dissent locally upon review of this letter. Edited July 1, 2015 by stemelbow
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I'm not sure "dissenting, obviously, doesn't help". I think it can help, quite a bit. It helps us recognize and understand, explore and conclude. Honestly I'm not sure keeping quiet about issues that may be a huge part of people's spiritual welfare is the tact we ought to encourage here.We're supposed to be getting together to discuss the welfare of our souls. Once we start putting limits on what people may express when it comes to the welfare of their souls, we're really limiting our Church experience. You're right. Absolutely. Would you agree, however, that we need to create an atmosphere wherein dissent is welcomed and discussed in a productive way? I don't think many wards are there yet.
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 I see the purpose of the special reading of the letter (in separate meetings with adults and youth) as further reinforcement of the church's current position on the matter. They're losing the hearts and minds of a growing number of members on this issue. I assume they realize this. The letter and attachments... the request for a special reading (even though the letter contains nothing new) is the continued attempt to get members to stop "defecting" on this issue. I guess it could even be a reason for defection, now that it's out in the open, give people food for thought
Popular Post halconero Posted July 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 1, 2015 Oh come on! Apparently Canada isn't special enough to get this letter ten years ago, but has to wait for the United States to hurry up and damn their entire nation to Armageddon like ours.Typical American Imperialism. 5
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) You're right. Absolutely. Would you agree, however, that we need to create an atmosphere wherein dissent is welcomed and discussed in a productive way? I don't think many wards are there yet. in our ward as a whole kind of, but we have a few High Priests who think they know all the secrets of the universe-our EQ though, they've ordained women to the priesthood, we drink watermelon vodka, we are all getting diseases to get that medical marywanna stuff! and our chapel is across the street from TWO, count them two pizza places so we take field trips Edited July 1, 2015 by Duncan 1
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Oh come on! Apparently Canada isn't special enough to get this letter ten years ago, but has to wait for the United States to hurry up and damn their entire nation to Armageddon like ours.Typical American Imperialism. that's exactly what I was thinking!!!!!!! Edited July 1, 2015 by Duncan 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I have no doubt, or little doubt, that there are wards out there where there is complete agreement on this issue. I also do not doubt that there are wards out there with active members who disagree with the Church's position on this issue. Of course those who disagree probably feel less welcome to speak up--probably feel like Church is less about speaking with one another about the welfare of their souls and more about trammeling people into submission on this point and perhaps others. Of course as we are currently situated, it is likely that in most wards, if someone states their disagreement with the Church on this point and the reasons why, he/she is likely to feel like the bishop will forever view he/she with skepticism and may even feel like the bishop wishes to call he/she in for discipline.I tend to believe that the wards that are mostly in agreement with the prophets are also the very wards that are, as a group, living more righteously. Areas where you have wards with more disagreement with the prophets are those where the people live less righteously. I also tend to think that there would be a strong correlation with rural area wards having a higher degree of righteous convictions than those areas inside cities and metropolis areas. 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Could be, but it's possible such a one is not on the road to apostasy. This brought to my mind the example of priesthood restriction. There was a time when the restriction was on, leaders promoted the causes for the restriction. A member might well have disagreed with the cause, and perhaps the restriction itself. Was such a member on the road to apostasy? I wouldn't think that such a person necessarily was on such a road.it could end up being further light and knowledge will be revealed to the Church one day and it'll cause a shift in thought much like that which happened in 1978.There will not be a shift in the future towards acceptance of SSM. Those members who believe there will be are not in line with the prophets. Whose side do you want to be on? 1
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 and what is the local leaders support it themselves? Yep. In some cases counselors might be able to help. And the general principle of not discussing the issue could apply. But there's certainly some callings (e.g., bishop) where sitting silent may be enough to avoid the issue.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Its rather simple. SSM goes against church policy. The question you have to ask is if you want to side with or side against the church. I imagine that if you decide to disagree and go on to promote SSM, then you probably are on the road to apostasy. Apostasy is a very high charge. The right to make the charge is only given to bishops, stake presidents, and higher leaders. I know such men and they don't throw around the charge lightly. I'm glad you don't have that authority. Regardless, there is strong precedent in church history for working with, rather than casting out, members who disagree on civil policy. Consider the 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) which was ratified by Utah. Ratification shows that a very large % of members - probably a majority - disagreed with the church in the votes they cast. But none were excommunicated for that. Good thing too. Because many current members trace their heritage through such saints.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Oh come on! Apparently Canada isn't special enough to get this letter ten years ago, but has to wait for the United States to hurry up and damn their entire nation to Armageddon like ours.Typical American Imperialism. Speaking of American Imperialism that will be taking place this Sunday, how about those US Women ?!!? 2
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 You're right. Absolutely. Would you agree, however, that we need to create an atmosphere wherein dissent is welcomed and discussed in a productive way? I don't think many wards are there yet. Most definitely.
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 There will not be a shift in the future towards acceptance of SSM. Those members who believe there will be are not in line with the prophets. Whose side do you want to be on? "And the fact that he has promised further revelation should be a challenge to keep our minds open and prepared to follow wherever our search for truth may lead" President Hugh B. Brown 1
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 There will not be a shift in the future towards acceptance of SSM. Those members who believe there will be are not in line with the prophets. Whose side do you want to be on? I admit I think quite differently on this stuff. I'm not really setting up camp on sides, aligning with people for the sake of letting them speak for me. Even if I disagree with one, I don't see that person on a different side as me, necessarily. For me, thinking that SSM is a good and productive thing, thinking that one day more light and knowledge will be shed upon us, is not opposing truth, goodness nor God. Not at all.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 There will not be a shift in the future towards acceptance of SSM. Those members who believe there will be are not in line with the prophets. Whose side do you want to be on? Brother Gallop disagrees.
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Apostasy is a very high charge. The right to make the charge is only given to bishops, stake presidents, and higher leaders. I know such men and they don't throw around the charge lightly. I'm glad you don't have that authority.Regardless, there is strong precedent in church history for working with, rather than casting out, members who disagree on civil policy. Consider the 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) which was ratified by Utah. Ratification shows that a very large % of members - probably a majority - disagreed with the church in the votes they cast. But none were excommunicated for that. Good thing too. Because many current members trace their heritage through such saints.Apostasy, apostasy, apostasy. I could understand about certain things and disagreeing. But with SSM its a whole different blatant ball game whose founder is none other than the Devil, aka "Lucifer", aka "Satan". I think it would be very wise we do not get trapped into the false belief of Satan's about this SSM issue and get swayed over to his dark side. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing good about SSM. It flat out flies in the face of God the Eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ, and his gospel which embodies the great plan of happiness. SSM is the path of misery, sin and abandonment of the Holy Spirit. Edited July 1, 2015 by Mormonmaniac 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Brother Gallop disagrees. My comment was in regards to acceptance by LDS prophets, not the world. I could care less what the world accepts. The world will burn when Christ comes and so will all these idol and sinful philosophies and those who promote such. 3
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Apostasy, apostasy, apostasy.I could understand about certain things and disagreeing. But with SSM its a whole different blatant ball game whose founder is none other than the Devil, aka "Lucifer", aka "Satan". I think it would be very wise we do not get trapped into the false belief of Satan's about this SSM issue and get swayed over to his dark side. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing good about SSM. It flat out flies in the face of God the Eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ, and his gospel which embodies the great plan of happiness. SSM is the path of misery, sin and abandonment of the Holy Spirit. do you believe Satan gave people SSA? Where do you think it comes from and why is it here and why does God allow it to come to earth?
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Could be, but it's possible such a one is not on the road to apostasy. This brought to my mind the example of priesthood restriction. There was a time when the restriction was on, leaders promoted the causes for the restriction. A member might well have disagreed with the cause, and perhaps the restriction itself. Was such a member on the road to apostasy? I wouldn't think that such a person necessarily was on such a road.it could end up being further light and knowledge will be revealed to the Church one day and it'll cause a shift in thought much like that which happened in 1978. Yes, such person was on the road to apostasy. God calls leaders. God sustains those leaders. God has asked us to sustain leaders. Members of the Church who acted to rescind the priesthood ban before 1978 were on the road to apostasy every bit as much as members of the Church who resisted the revelation in 1978. 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I admit I think quite differently on this stuff. I'm not really setting up camp on sides, aligning with people for the sake of letting them speak for me. Even if I disagree with one, I don't see that person on a different side as me, necessarily.For me, thinking that SSM is a good and productive thing, thinking that one day more light and knowledge will be shed upon us, is not opposing truth, goodness nor God. Not at all.It is opposing the truth though. Take the blindfold off my brother.
Recommended Posts