Popular Post Russell C McGregor Posted July 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 3, 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. What "leap?" Doctrine and Covenants 1: 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; 6
Bobbieaware Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 What "leap?"Doctrine and Covenants 1:14 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;The essence of the problem here is that when members of the church do not possess the spirit of revelation, as a consequence of doggedly hanging on to pet notions that are at odds with the teachings of the prophets, they are left to their own devices without the light. 4
rockpond Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Rockpond's way:The Lord's way:Moses 7:18 And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.I think we need to help each other get there. I think open and loving discussions in Sunday School would help rather than having some of our fellow saints feel that they just can't speak of their questions and concerns.
rockpond Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 What "leap?"Doctrine and Covenants 1:14 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;"Give heed" does not mean unquestioning obedience. Aren't we counseled against that?I give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles: I study the scriptures. I listen to conference. Study their messages afterwards. Prayerfully review the themes they are teaching when I select sacrament meeting topic assignments. And seek the direction of the Spirit in following their counsel in my life.
Mystery Meat Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) I know that's the attitude common today. I'd like to see that change. Afterall church is for, as a primary purpose, a place for us to get together to discuss the welfare of our souls. If we limit our scope of what we can talk about, we limit Church. I think that's clearly, where we are. We have limited Church so people feel pressure to keep in line so disagreers don't get upset. Wrong. The primary purpose of church meetings on Sunday is, first, to renew covenants and, second, worship God. Anything that takes away from either of those two is inappropriate. Anybody who thinks otherwise is doing it wrong. Edited July 3, 2015 by Mystery Meat 1
Storm Rider Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 This is a challenge for a variety of reasons. If we just look at this board we see such a wide range of perceptions. It does not matter what the Prophet, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, or even scripture says there are individuals that refuse to believe anything that has been said. If there is not a burning bush or God Almighty standing before them condemning SSM or even homosexual behavior they will not believe or think differently than they have chosen. If we did have a conversation what would be the purpose? What is the end goal or the objective? I can understand a conversation that strives to teach members the importance of treating others, regardless of their sins, as brothers and sisters; being patient and long-suffering with their choices. That is a meeting and a conversation with a purpose that brings the saints closer to the example of our Master. If the real agenda is to plant seeds of doubt, to motivate the saints to agitate against God and the leaders of the Church, then I want no part of it. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 If we did have a conversation what would be the purpose? What is the end goal or the objective? The purpose of any such meeting would be for certain members to justify their rebellion and feel better about themselves. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 I think we need to help each other get there. I think open and loving discussions in Sunday School would help rather than having some of our fellow saints feel that they just can't speak of their questions and concerns.Open questioning and challenging of the established position of the Church and the unified voice of the prophets and apostles is no way to bring us closer to a Zion society. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 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.For members of the Church in Canada or anywhere else who were in touch with the position and doctrine of the Church at any point prior to now (consider the family proclamation, for instance) nothing in this new letter should come as any surprise. Edited July 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Lightbearer Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Some people think that God does not guide his church but narrow minded men teach their own opinions. This was the reason the fullness of the Gospel had to be restored. Many love to proclaim that the prophet is not infallible yet they fail to recognize their own personal fallibility. We either accept the restoration or we do not. Using the 1978 revelation as an argument for Same Sex Marrige is erroneous because the ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood was not in response to sin on the part of our black brethren. It was not bigotry, it was scripturally based but we do not know the reason for the curse, only there was one. In the case of SSM it is in itself sin, the entire concept is based on justification of a sinful act. That is why it will NEVER change. The linage of the Egyptians was cursed as pertaining to the priesthood, but the curse was not to be forever, just as the Gospel not going to the gentiles would not be forever. This SSM thing is a corruption of real marriage, the actions of homosexuals are sin, that will never change. So comparing it to the lifting of the priesthood ban is like comparing apples and oranges. It is based on a desperate hope that God will someday condone sin. He will not, nevertheless he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord will be forgiven. Edited July 3, 2015 by Lightbearer
Stargazer Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 It seems so cut and dry but members have questions that the answers don't seem to be forthcoming or people don't agree with the answer. Like, why does homosexuality transgendered even exist? Why don't we know we know the answer? it takes one person with a different position or question and others will join in on either side and well, we see that here I have a medium case of Attention Deficit Disorder. It causes me issues, though after all these years of dealing with it, I manage. One of my sons has Paranoid Personality Disorder. He doesn't even know that he has a problem (his entire family is his problem, he believes). Why do these two things exist? Why didn't God make us all physically perfect? 1
Recommended Posts