carbon dioxide Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The one glaring omission from the letter is any meaningful instruction on how to approach members who disagree with church. The final paragraph tries to address the issue, but only cites to the handbook section on proper channels for questions (ie, talk to your bishop; don't write the FP). There is nothing to help local leaders who preside over members who have prayed, read scriptures, etc. ... and yet still support SSM. My guess is that the FP/Q12 still haven't figured out exactly how to deal with this and so, until they do, local leaders will be left to their own judgment.I support porn, prostitution, all drugs to be legal. Not because I think they are good but the libertarian side of me says that what a person wants to do in their personal life is their business and the government has no say in it. The governmentn does not own us and as long as we are not hurting another citizen, the government should be out of the equation. If we really believe there was a war in heaven and we fought over the right to have agency in this life and to choose for ourselves to follow God or not, than on that level members can "support" SSM without a problem. What members need to remember is that SSM is a violation of the laws of God and would be included in the "whoredoms" as mentioned in 2 Nephi 28:15 "and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" God does not defer to modern society, courts of man, or what century one lives in to decide his laws. We can support the right to people to choose wickedness and eternal damnation. That is what agency is all about. 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 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?Temptations come from all sides. I am highly attracted to members of the opposite sex and I am also happily married and have ALWAYS been faithful. SSA can happen to anyone. Its not a sin to have SSA. Its when we act on those temptations that it becomes sinful. We are to overcome the natural man, not be the natural man. SSM is a movement towards sinfulness of the natural man in just one of the many ways man fall victim to his temptations.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 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. How about members who prayed for the ban to change, even though leaders had said it was remain into the millenium? There's no issue in all my life that I had prayed more regarding -- praying that it would change, praying that it would come in due time. I was willing to have the Lord speak, and I was loyal to the position and the brethren and the whole concept, but there was nothing about which I had anguished more or about which I had prayed more. And for that to be said in my lifetime, when I wasn't sure it would happen in my lifetime, ... it was one of the absolute happiest days of my life. ... - Jeffrey R. Holland (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html)
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Temptations come from all sides. I am highly attracted to members of the opposite sex and I am also happily married and have ALWAYS been faithful. SSA can happen to anyone. Its not a sin to have SSA. Its when we act on those temptations that it becomes sinful. We are to overcome the natural man, not be the natural man. SSM is a movement towards sinfulness of the natural man in just one of the many ways man fall victim to his temptations. We know temptation exists but why does God allow homosexuality SSA can happen to anyone? I'm confident I would never sleep with a man, not even for a trillion clams. Sex is natural and you can do it with be depraved about it.
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 How about members who prayed for the ban to change, even though leaders had said it was remain into the millenium? I have no problem with that. Its the public agitation campaigns and evil speaking that is the issue. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) We know temptation exists but why does God allow homosexuality SSA can happen to anyone? I'm confident I would never sleep with a man, not even for a trillion clams. Sex is natural and you can do it with be depraved about it. Why did God allow me to have a desire to impregnate a lot of different women? We all have the natural man. Only those who put it off will become as saints. Edited July 1, 2015 by Mystery Meat 2
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I have no problem with that. Its the public agitation campaigns and evil speaking that is the issue. Then we probably agree. I'm not talking about members who openly campaign to change church doctrine or decry church leaders as evil (very few in number). I'm talking about members who support civil SSM and also love and support their church leaders (very many in number).
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Then we probably agree. I'm not talking about members who openly campaign to change church doctrine or decry church leaders as evil (very few in number). I'm talking about members who support civil SSM and also love and support their church leaders (very many in number). I have no problem with such members. I have a problem with members who actively advocate that the Church should/or will change its policy. I have problems with members who call members of church leaders bigots for giving us God's word on the matter. I have problems with members of the Church who compare SSM to the priesthood ban. I have problems with Church members who associate with organizations who are actively trying to change Church policy or apply pressure to the Church through humiliation and shame campaigns. I agree they are very few in number. 1
MorningStar Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Maybe because it's not a subject for primary aged children? 4
DJBrown 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. Discussion is fine. But I don't get any sense that the church and brethren will be changing the will of the Lord anytime soon. I see this as simply a fundamental matter where a person either agrees with the Lord and His representatives, or he or she disagrees. And extensive discussions are not likely to convince those who disagree that they are wrong. I am reminded of the fairly lengthy and repetitive statement from Christ in 3 Nephi 11 about contention. I think opening up church meetings for lengthy and deep conversations and debates about this matter is not the Lord's will. Nor would they likely be productive. My 2 cents. 3
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 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. I suppose I disagree quite readily on this. Just because someone is in a position does not mean God chose that person out of everyone else. it seems to me, it means that people chose others for position and God says whether it's ok or not, through prayer and personal revelation (which is not foolproof). Thus, I see no reason to think that by saying God calls and sustains them, we ought to take that to mean God is behind every action and thought. the calling and sustaining by God seems much more behind the scenes and passive than that. if so, then I can see God letting it so be, for the sake of agency and suffering the people to figure it out. I'm far more for the idea that we ought to embrace goodness and truth no matter it's source. Often times, as it is, it seems obvious the church has received learnings from outside, and based on those learnings have made changes, some very crucial changes.
Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Why did God allow me to have a desire to impregnate a lot of different women? We all have the natural man. Only those who put it off will become as saints. well that explains why people cheat on others but not every gay couple or straight couple cheat
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 It is opposing the truth though. Take the blindfold off my brother. Ya haven't convinced me in the least. It seems like those who follow along have been blinded to me.
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Ya haven't convinced me in the least. It seems like those who follow along have been blinded to me. Blinded by the Lord and those he has called... You will forgive me if I trust them more than the world. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 How to do the meeting:Bishop: "Show of hands. Who here doesn't understand the church's position on SSM?"No hands.Bishop: "You can all pass your gases, er, go to your classes."The end. 2
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I suppose I disagree quite readily on this. Just because someone is in a position does not mean God chose that person out of everyone else. it seems to me, it means that people chose others for position and God says whether it's ok or not, through prayer and personal revelation (which is not foolproof). Thus, I see no reason to think that by saying God calls and sustains them, we ought to take that to mean God is behind every action and thought. the calling and sustaining by God seems much more behind the scenes and passive than that. if so, then I can see God letting it so be, for the sake of agency and suffering the people to figure it out. I'm far more for the idea that we ought to embrace goodness and truth no matter it's source. Often times, as it is, it seems obvious the church has received learnings from outside, and based on those learnings have made changes, some very crucial changes. "Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man." All movie quoting aside, I not only think you are wrong, I think you are dangerously wrong.
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 How to do the meeting:Bishop: "Show of hands. Who here doesn't understand the church's position on SSM?"No hands.Bishop: "You can all pass your gases, er, go to your classes."The end. And if the point of the meeting was just to clarify you would have a point. The point of the meeting is to warn as much as anything, I suppose.
DJBrown Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 "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 I get the impression that LDS who think there will be a change in this policy and doctrine in the future do not truly have an open mind. They believe they are right and the brethren are wrong. Just sayin. 4
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Romans 1, as far as I am concerned, is the end of the discussion of the matter. Until such time as Revelation is given that Paul's words are being revised, I'll stick with him. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Edited July 1, 2015 by ELF1024 1
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Blinded by the Lord and those he has called... You will forgive me if I trust them more than the world. I forgive everyone as Jesus instructed. So problem there.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 And if the point of the meeting was just to clarify you would have a point. The point of the meeting is to warn as much as anything, I suppose.Warn of what?
stemelbow Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 "Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man." All movie quoting aside, I not only think you are wrong, I think you are dangerously wrong. Well I just started a new thread on this. I guess there I can get instructed on the danger on this. But it's possible I am right and you are dangerously wrong.
rockpond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Discussion is fine. But I don't get any sense that the church and brethren will be changing the will of the Lord anytime soon. I see this as simply a fundamental matter where a person either agrees with the Lord and His representatives, or he or she disagrees. And extensive discussions are not likely to convince those who disagree that they are wrong. I am reminded of the fairly lengthy and repetitive statement from Christ in 3 Nephi 11 about contention. I think opening up church meetings for lengthy and deep conversations and debates about this matter is not the Lord's will. Nor would they likely be productive. My 2 cents. Yes, any conversations and debates would need to avoid contention. Which, I think, is difficult with respect to this subject. The rest of your statement here presupposes that the content of that letter reflects that revealed will of the Lord. Since no revelation has been cited, I'm not willing to make that leap. 1
DJBrown Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Yes, any conversations and debates would need to avoid contention. Which, I think, is difficult with respect to this subject. The rest of your statement here presupposes that the content of that letter reflects that revealed will of the Lord. Since no revelation has been cited, I'm not willing to make that leap. So a statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, summarizing their consistent and firm stand on a moral issue over decades doesn't reflect the will of the Lord? Really? That is amazing to me- that a believing member would make such a claim. 3
Mystery Meat Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Well I just started a new thread on this. I guess there I can get instructed on the danger on this. But it's possible I am right and you are dangerously wrong. I am with the Prophets, so no its not.
Recommended Posts