mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 It seems that the subject of SSM is seen differently in each country. It makes me wonder why the church had the letter read in Canadian wards at all.Think about that. There is no longer a difference between the US and Canada in this regard, if we needed it, they needed it.
Nevo Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) ...if we needed it, they needed it. That seems to be the thinking at the COB. But if we needed it, we needed it in 2005, no? I am informed that there are 18 countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Why wasn't the letter read in those countries? Why is Canada treated as an appendage of the US? Edited July 6, 2015 by Nevo 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 That seems to be the thinking at the COB. But if we needed it, we needed it in 2005, no? I am informed that there are 18 countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Why wasn't the letter read in those countries? Why is Canada treated as an appendage of the US?Didn't you ever watch the Simpsons? Canada is just America junior. That might be why?
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 That seems to be the thinking at the COB. But if we needed it, we needed it in 2005, no? I am informed that there are 18 countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Why wasn't the letter read in those countries? Why is Canada treated as an appendage of the US?I know, it is terribly unfair especially when Canadian culture, movies,music,and technological achievements are world renowned, in comparison to the paltry achievements of the US, eh? 1
Duncan Posted July 6, 2015 Author Posted July 6, 2015 I know, it is terribly unfair especially when Canadian culture, movies,music,and technological achievements are world renowned, in comparison to the paltry achievements of the US, eh? see! At least you got that right!!!!!
ERayR Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 That seems to be the thinking at the COB. But if we needed it, we needed it in 2005, no? I am informed that there are 18 countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Why wasn't the letter read in those countries? Why is Canada treated as an appendage of the US? Maybe because they didn't participate in the American Revolution.
bluebell Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Think about that.There is no longer a difference between the US and Canada in this regard, if we needed it, they needed it.If they didn't need it when SSM became legal in Canada, why do they need it now?And, if SSM had never been made legal in the U.S., would that mean that Canada would never had needed the letter?
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=866798713415108&id=160688854026101These sentiments should have accompanied the letter.
Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I heard it was read in ph/rs yesterday. I missed it.
Teancum Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) I wasn't at my home ward today. I was in Manhattan with the Tabernacle Choir.At our special sacrament meeting in the hotel, Elder Ronald A. Rasband declared that religious freedom is being trampled upon and urged us all to uphold it. He said those whose eyes glaze over when the subject is brought up need to educate themselves by examining the Church website on the subject, etc.This has been my sentiment for quite a while now, and I have expressed it on this board.Did Elder Rasband give any examples of how religious freedom is being trampled. I keep hearing the so some specifics would be nice.Editd to add that I saw you reference something on the church website. Do you have a link? Edited July 7, 2015 by Teancum
canard78 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Think about that.There is no longer a difference between the US and Canada in this regard, if we needed it, they needed it.So why didn't UK, indeed many parts of Europe, not need it? We've had gay marriage (in full) for less time than Canada but longer than USA. Canada is just another country that happens to share a border with USA. I suppose this is fairly par for the course. The church's americentrism is quite obvious. 2
canard78 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Maybe because they didn't participate in the American Revolution.Neither did Ireland... Where gay marriage is also legal and which shares many cultural ties with USA.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Did Elder Rasband give any examples of how religious freedom is being trampled. I keep hearing the so some specifics would be nice.Editd to add that I saw you reference something on the church website. Do you have a link?http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedomIt is a very extensive and content-rich website, and it does include specific examples.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Huh? Do you think local bishops in Ottowa have been teaching their members that SSM or engaging in same-sex relations is OK? No. I'm certain that Canadian leaders have been teaching the same principles their US counterparts. What evidence do you have that they did not teaching same-sex relationships were outside the bounds and doctrine of the Church? You have said they were "behind the curve" on this one.... so I'd love to see some examples of Canadian local leaders teaching false doctrine on SSM or otherwise leading their flocks astray.My post was in response to the report of a bishop griping about instruction from the First Presidency and Quorun of the Twelve emphasizing teachings that have been had among the saints for a long time now and which any local leader could have done anyway before now on his own initiative even before this recent directive. Such murmuring in front of his flock is inappropriate, unseemly, and indicative of a leader in the Church who is facing the wrong direction. Perhaps the Brethren could have given more locale-specific directives, but again, that's what stake presidents and bishops are for, and furthermore, it is not meet that such local leaders be commanded in all things, as he who requires it is a slothful and not a wise servant.
sunstoned Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 My post was in response to the report of a bishop griping about instruction from the First Presidency and Quorun of the Twelve emphasizing teachings that have been had among the saints for a long time now and which any local leader could have done anyway before now on his own initiative even before this recent directive. Such murmuring in front of his flock is inappropriate, unseemly, and indicative of a leader in the Church who is facing the wrong direction. Perhaps the Brethren could have given more locale-specific directives, but again, that's what stake presidents and bishops are for, and furthermore, it is not meet that such local leaders be commanded in all things, as he who requires it is a slothful and not a wise servant.What happened to it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true? You weren't there, so what gives you the right to pass judgement on the bishop? If the reporting is correct, then I think the point is well taken that the senior leadership of the church is very America centric. The bishop had every right to point this out. 1
sunstoned Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedomIt is a very extensive and content-rich website, and it does include specific examples.Please help me out here as I am a little slow. I went through this web page on religious freedom and viewed the video and could not find any examples of how our religious freedom is being trampled. Could you point them out to me? Thanks.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 What happened to it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true? You weren't there, so what gives you the right to pass judgement on the bishop? If the reporting is correct, then I think the point is well taken that the senior leadership of the church is very America centric. The bishop had every right to point this out.I can only go by what is reported in the post, and I have the right to express an opinion on the propriety of what has been reported. Absent any indication to the contrary, I assume the report is accurate. And given a conflict between the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and a murmuring local leader, I'll go with the First presidency and apostles every time.
Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Perhaps the consequences from same sex marriage is going to have more specific fall out in the USA and Canada. And that's why we have more specific counsel than Europe and other areas.The Lord can inspire the prophets, seers, and revelatory to warn specific regions on specific matters. Abraham was only warned about Sodom and Gomorrah, not about China. Alma was commanded to preach a specific message to ammonihah that wasn't directed at bountiful.What exactly was wrong with the lesson on this particular topic? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Please help me out here as I am a little slow. I went through this web page on religious freedom and viewed the video and could not find any examples of how our religious freedom is being trampled. Could you point them out to me? Thanks.There are several videos, not just one. There are articles with "read more" links. And there are links to further resources. After you've expended a more reasonable degree of effort in examining the website, come back to me with specific questions and I'll give what guidance I can.
rodheadlee Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 That seems to be the thinking at the COB. But if we needed it, we needed it in 2005, no? I am informed that there are 18 countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Why wasn't the letter read in those countries? Why is Canada treated as an appendage of the US?Because it is an appendage to the US?
sethpayne Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) My post was in response to the report of a bishop griping about instruction from the First Presidency and Quorun of the Twelve emphasizing teachings that have been had among the saints for a long time now and which any local leader could have done anyway before now on his own initiative even before this recent directive. Such murmuring in front of his flock is inappropriate, unseemly, and indicative of a leader in the Church who is facing the wrong direction. Perhaps the Brethren could have given more locale-specific directives, but again, that's what stake presidents and bishops are for, and furthermore, it is not meet that such local leaders be commanded in all things, as he who requires it is a slothful and not a wise servant. Again, you have no evidence that these leaders did not instruct their flocks properly on the issue of SSM. So what's your complaint? That a non-US bishop made a quip about how the LDS Church is US-centric? "Murmuring?" Give me a break. "Wrong direction?" Good grief. The LDS Church has treated Canada like the 51st state instead of its own independent country. Remember how you get all bent out of shape when people refer to "Utah Mormonism?" You are putting it on full display. I am noticing a pattern with you, Scott. SLC = Good. Therefore, if EveroneElse = SLC, then EveroneElse = Good. If EveryoneElse != SLC, then EveroneElse is NOT good. I'm going to call this the Lloyd Law of Judgment. Edited July 7, 2015 by sethpayne 1
sethpayne Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) What happened to it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true? You weren't there, so what gives you the right to pass judgement on the bishop? If the reporting is correct, then I think the point is well taken that the senior leadership of the church is very America centric. The bishop had every right to point this out. Very good point!!! I'm reporting Scott to Elder Oaks straightaway. But in all fairness, sunstoned, since the Bishop said something that wasn't 100% worshipful of SLC, we do know that the bishop was wrong. See: Lloyd Law of Judgment. Edited July 7, 2015 by sethpayne
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I didn't think this thread was going to carry much interest for me, but sometimes I get surprised. I'm intrigued that someone is accusing an unnamed bishop of all sorts of evil things based on what seems to amount to a half a sentence pointing out the obvious. As if doing so is aligning himself with the devil or something. Just last night my wife pointed out how many of her friends in the Church are just as emotionally responsive in regards to the SSM issue as many supporters, but the Church members don't seem to get how imbalanced and emotional they can be on this topic, as judgment and hostility flies from their lips. Its interesting that each side feels some amount of oppression from the other and the other doesn't seem to empathize much with the "opponent". One of these days the Church will get it right, though, and we'll look back at these days with blinders.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 ...he also assumed that many were uncomfortable with this topic and were "staring down at their shoes." I didn't get that sense at all, but to each their own. If he had ever been a Teacher's Quorum advisor he would know that staring down at their shoes is standard operating procedure for most Young Men during lessons.
Recommended Posts