Hey Let's Talk Church Direction

[ksfisher]

“Don't judge me because I sin differently from you.”  This quote from Uchtdorf is often ignored by members of the church.  We are all sinners in one form of another but we tend to categorize and rank our sins.  A simple analogy.  Is a girl who dresses immodestly a greater sinner than the ladies in the ward who gossip about it?  Where is the greater sin?  I have a hard time when arrogant, egotistical men are called to high callings in the church.  I had a stake presidency member who would cause my primary president cry because he would use his stake calling to control and bully the members of the ward cub committee.  He was later called to be a Stake President.  Humility was not an attribute he possessed.  I also know of a man who is incredibly arrogant and is "shady" in his business dealings.  He was called as a Bishop.  I guess because their sins are in how they treat others, it doesn't matter as much.  Don't send your kids to BYU or BYUI if they struggle with any aspects of the gospel.  It is an unforgiving environment to those who stumble and can effect their secular and spiritual development.  The consequenses of imperfection are too great.  There is no concern shown to those they expel and no follow up.  The secular consequences to spiritual failings overlap too much.  I am an active member of the church and I love the gospel of Jesus Christ but the church is not perfect and imperfect people make many mistakes.  

 

The Lord seems to work through imperfect people.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ksfisher

[stemelbow]

The Lord seems to work throught imperfect people.

Indeedily do. He'll work through gay people just like He'll work through me (the chiefest of sinners). Makes ya wonder why so many are trying their darndest to keep those gays out.

[stemelbow]

“Don't judge me because I sin differently from you.”  This quote from Uchtdorf is often ignored by members of the church.  We are all sinners in one form of another but we tend to categorize and rank our sins.  A simple analogy.  Is a girl who dresses immodestly a greater sinner than the ladies in the ward who gossip about it?  Where is the greater sin?  I have a hard time when arrogant, egotistical men are called to high callings in the church.  I had a stake presidency member who would cause my primary president cry because he would use his stake calling to control and bully the members of the ward cub committee.  He was later called to be a Stake President.  Humility was not an attribute he possessed.  I also know of a man who is incredibly arrogant and is "shady" in his business dealings.  He was called as a Bishop.  I guess because their sins are in how they treat others, it doesn't matter as much.  Don't send your kids to BYU or BYUI if they struggle with any aspects of the gospel.  It is an unforgiving environment to those who stumble and can effect their secular and spiritual development.  The consequenses of imperfection are too great.  There is no concern shown to those they expel and no follow up.  The secular consequences to spiritual failings overlap too much.  I am an active member of the church and I love the gospel of Jesus Christ but the church is not perfect and imperfect people make many mistakes.

I hear ya. I love the Church, but I fear we get caught up in ourselves too much.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I should add another story to go with my being asked not to bless the sacrament because of my shirt. Ironically for my cousin's temple wedding I visited Utah and brought a white dress shirt and a blue dress shirt. My grandparents cat got my white shirt all furry right when we were supposed to get dressed to leave so I had no choice but to wear the blue shirt to the temple. I expected to get turned away since this was after the sacrament incident, but surprisingly I was allowed into the sealing room with my blue shirt to watch my cousin get sealed. Now that's a good story and a place where I thought I'd need a white shirt more. Also in Young Men, before Boston got a temple, our YM/YW traveled to Toronto Canada for baptisms on a 3 day trip. We went right to the temple one day after sight seeing before changing and me and a couple others left our church clothes at the hotel we were staying at so when we walked into the temple, all the young women were dressed in dresses, but the young men were in street clothes. I was wearing a Metallica t shirt. The lady at the front desk said we were welcome in as guests and we got to do baptisms, even though we came into the temple in black clothes. So to sum up, 1 Bishop during sacrament meeting can't handle a white shirt with blue stripes to bless, while 2 different temples the house of the Lord, let me in, once with a blue shirt to see a sealing, and again in black adidas pants and a black Metallica t shirt (I was 14).

[stemelbow]

I should add another story to go with my being asked not to bless the sacrament because of my shirt. Ironically for my cousin's temple wedding I visited Utah and brought a white dress shirt and a blue dress shirt. My grandparents cat got my white shirt all furry right when we were supposed to get dressed to leave so I had no choice but to wear the blue shirt to the temple. I expected to get turned away since this was after the sacrament incident, but surprisingly I was allowed into the sealing room with my blue shirt to watch my cousin get sealed. Now that's a good story and a place where I thought I'd need a white shirt more. Also in Young Men, before Boston got a temple, our YM/YW traveled to Toronto Canada for baptisms on a 3 day trip. We went right to the temple one day after sight seeing before changing and me and a couple others left our church clothes at the hotel we were staying at so when we walked into the temple, all the young women were dressed in dresses, but the young men were in street clothes. I was wearing a Metallica t shirt. The lady at the front desk said we were welcome in as guests and we got to do baptisms, even though we came into the temple in black clothes. So to sum up, 1 Bishop during sacrament meeting can't handle a white shirt with blue stripes to bless, while 2 different temples the house of the Lord, let me in, once with a blue shirt to see a sealing, and again in black adidas pants and a black Metallica t shirt (I was 14).

Thanks for sharing. Sometimes we're so inconsistently weird, or obsessively pharisaical. I can't tell which most of the time.

[filovirus]

White shirts while blessing/passing the sacrament helps to show priesthood unity and good appearance, but I have seen plenty of individuals wear non-white shirts for blessing/passing. The priesthood power is the same no matter what a person wears. However, a metallica T-shirt may detract from others trying to focus on our Savior. I may cringe a little if I saw person blessing/passing the sacrament in that garb. But again, the priesthood power is the same.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I know if it was Jesus' decision, he would have let me in the temple both times too and he would have let me bless the sacrament.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've stated my objection and it's hardly about semantics. He's unnecessarily harsh and rude towards many people, whether gay or straight.

So you're objecting to his tone. That's understandable. His approach was forceful, perhaps even intemperate. That tends to rub people the wrong way. I do believe he was provoked though.

 

 

It's not that he used the term progressive Christians, it's that he actually thinks any Christian is thinking in the way he described. I know I don't. If I don't, then who are these Progressive Christians he's after?

 

Christians have historically taught, and many still believe, that sex in any form outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. He's espousing that traditional belief and, in this blog post, is responding to an anonymous e-mailer who called him a "sh---y Christian" for doing so. I think some pushback is understandable.

 

 

It's not that he doesn't think gay people should be sexually active with each other. It's that he actually thinks they want to come to Christ and say they don't sin or never had sinned.

 

Apparently that's something like what the anonymous letter writer thinks who he's responding to.

 

 

His hospital analogy fails on that front.

 

The hospital analogy is quite apt, especially considering the extension I gave about how patients in a hospital are typically restricted from doing things that would hinder their own recovery or that would be harmful to themselves and others.

 

He's trying to say that because some disagree with him whether a certain act is sin or not, then these people don't accept Christ's atonement, because apparently they think they don't sin at all. That's silly. If they are Christian, they are Christian for a reason.

 

 

Again, he was called a "sh---y Christian" for holding traditionally Christian beliefs. He's responding in public to an attack from an anonymous letter writer. And he makes a good point, say I.

 

Sheesh everyone of us holds onto sins, to some extent. We just do. We don't just treat people poorly because they haven't given up on some sins.

 

I think I've said this several times already, but nobody here is advocating "treat[ing] people poorly" -- unless you think declaring sinful behavior as not sinful amounts to treating people poorly.

 

Many in the Church, I've known, over the years have felt strongly that what they do is not sin, even if it seems apparent to others. We don't treat these people so poorly that they don't feel welcome. We normally embrace them, and give them high level callings.

 

Um, in the Church of Jesus Christ with which I am familiar, it is not the normative practice to give "high-level" callings to those who are in such a state of rebellion that they insist on continuing to sin with impunity.

[Scott Lloyd]

FWIW, it was said by a stake president, and it's always stuck with me. 

I don't doubt the stake president had a good application for it. It just doesn't work in this case.

[stemelbow]

So you're objecting to his tone. That's understandable. His approach was forceful, perhaps even intemperate. That tends to rub people the wrong way. I do believe he was provoked though.

Sure his tone's a problem and I'm glad to hear you agree.

 

Christians have historically taught, and many still believe, that sex in any form outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. He's espousing that traditional belief and, in this blog post, is responding to an anonymous e-mailer who called him a "sh---y Christian" for doing so. I think some pushback is understandable.

He was called a "sh--y Christian" because of the way he approached the issue for gay Christians. That's not really a concern for me, since I find the message to which he's responding to as off-putting as his response.

 

Apparently that's something like what the anonymous letter writer thinks who he's responding to.

Well he accused a broad range of Christians (Progressive Christians) of such thinking. The attach was without merit and without reason, really.

 

The hospital analogy is quite apt, especially considering the extension I gave about how patients in a hospital are typically restricted from doing things that would hinder their own recovery or that would be harmful to themselves and others.

His hospital analogy was accusing people who want in the hospital because of their ailments, of being those who pretend not to be sick. All because they disagree with him on whether gay sex is sin. We all should be able to accept that there is disagreement without being so accusatory, I'd think.

 

Again, he was called a "sh---y Christian" for holding traditionally Christian beliefs. He's responding in public to an attack from an anonymous letter writer. And he makes a good point, say I.

His point and whole post amounted to calling many people bad Christians--gay Christians and Progressive Christians. He was accusing many people after being accused by one. And in doing he showed a great deal of condemnation and judgment for people he seems to know nothing about.

 

I think I've said this several times already, but nobody here is advocating "treat[ing] people poorly" -- unless you think declaring sinful behavior as not sinful amounts to treating people poorly.

I linked a blog written by a gay LDS person who pointed out plenty of objectionable comments made in the blog you linked. I'd say many feel like they are treated poorly because of the rhetoric in the blog you approved of. The blog writer may say he doesn't treat people poorly, but I'd say many whom he condemns in his blog feel like he treats people poorly. That you approved of his blog seems like you approved of treating people poorly.

 

Um, in the Church of Jesus Christ with which I am familiar, it is not the normative practice to give "high-level" callings to those who are in such a state of rebellion that they insist on continuing to sin with impunity.

Ok. It's not normative, but as bsjkki pointed out, it happens. And even if it doesn't happen, plenty are welcomed and are made to feel welcome even if they disagree that what they do constitutes sin.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure his tone's a problem and I'm glad to hear you agree.

 

He was called a "sh--y Christian" because of the way he approached the issue for gay Christians. That's not really a concern for me, since I find the message to which he's responding to as off-putting as his response.

 

Well he accused a broad range of Christians (Progressive Christians) of such thinking. The attach was without merit and without reason, really.

 

His hospital analogy was accusing people who want in the hospital because of their ailments, of being those who pretend not to be sick. All because they disagree with him on whether gay sex is sin. We all should be able to accept that there is disagreement without being so accusatory, I'd think.

 

His point and whole post amounted to calling many people bad Christians--gay Christians and Progressive Christians. He was accusing many people after being accused by one. And in doing he showed a great deal of condemnation and judgment for people he seems to know nothing about.

 

I linked a blog written by a gay LDS person who pointed out plenty of objectionable comments made in the blog you linked. I'd say many feel like they are treated poorly because of the rhetoric in the blog you approved of. The blog writer may say he doesn't treat people poorly, but I'd say many whom he condemns in his blog feel like he treats people poorly. That you approved of his blog seems like you approved of treating people poorly.

 

Ok. It's not normative, but as bsjkki pointed out, it happens. And even if it doesn't happen, plenty are welcomed and are made to feel welcome even if they disagree that what they do constitutes sin.

I approved of the blog because of the overall premise -- that being inclusive does not mean excusing, condoning or in any way approving of a pattern of grievously sinful behavior. I stand by that position. And I've had to repeat it enough times now that I think I've made it clear.

 

Edited to add: I think it fairly likely he has been accused by a lot more than just the one anonymous letter writer. His post seems reflect some pent-up indignation over that.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Not entirely, no.

 

As I've been at pains to point out before, BYU is engaged in preparing people to go out into secular society where they bring credit to the Church and help build the Kingdom of God on earth through the expression of their talents and intellect. BYU is frustrated in that objective when a student decides he no longer wants to belong to the Church or live up to its standards.

 

 

More like it refuses to admit them in the first place. It's a fact of life that one's behavior can make one ineligible for certain privileges.

 

Not sure why you say that. People can get kicked out for making moral mistakes at BYU. 

 

This is utter claptrap. You don't need to enroll at BYU to access the blessings of the Atonement.

 

But apparently in order to access the blessings of the atonement you need to leave BYU first? If not, why kick people out for making certain classes of mistakes?

 

And arguably, if you violate your covenants while attending BYU, you are not accessing the blessings of the Atonement.

 

You can't access the blessings of the atonement if you're sinless. What do you suppose the atonement is for, if not to take care of sin?

 

See above. Secular education of students is not the only purpose of BYU. There are plenty of other colleges and universities to choose from that do not have religious values or beliefs as an integral part of their mission. Those for whom such values and beliefs are inconvenient or intolerable are free to go elsewhere.

 

Everyone's a sinner, BYU student or otherwise. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Not entirely, no.

 

As I've been at pains to point out before, BYU is engaged in preparing people to go out into secular society where they bring credit to the Church and help build the Kingdom of God on earth through the expression of their talents and intellect. BYU is frustrated in that objective when a student decides he no longer wants to belong to the Church or live up to its standards.

 

 

More like it refuses to admit them in the first place. It's a fact of life that one's behavior can make one ineligible for certain privileges.

 

Not sure why you say that. People can get kicked out for making moral mistakes at BYU. 

 

This is utter claptrap. You don't need to enroll at BYU to access the blessings of the Atonement.

 

But apparently in order to access the blessings of the atonement you need to leave BYU first? If not, why kick people out for making certain classes of mistakes?

 

And arguably, if you violate your covenants while attending BYU, you are not accessing the blessings of the Atonement.

 

You can't access the blessings of the atonement if you're sinless. What do you suppose the atonement is for, if not to take care of sin?

 

See above. Secular education of students is not the only purpose of BYU. There are plenty of other colleges and universities to choose from that do not have religious values or beliefs as an integral part of their mission. Those for whom such values and beliefs are inconvenient or intolerable are free to go elsewhere.

 

Everyone's a sinner, BYU student or otherwise. 

 

I hate when you do this. It makes it very difficult to provide interlinear responses.

 

Not sure why you say that. People can get kicked out for making moral mistakes at BYU.

 

What I mean is the expectation is they will do all they can to avoid the immoral behavior in the first place. And understand that said avoidance is a condition of their continued enrollment.

 

But apparently in order to access the blessings of the atonement you need to leave BYU first? If not, why kick people out for making certain classes of mistakes?

 

Some sins are more egregious than others and will automatically render a person ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU. (Interesting that you insist on minimizing sins by referring to them as "mistakes.")

 

You can't access the blessings of the atonement if you're sinless. What do you suppose the atonement is for, if not to take care of sin?

 

Notwithstanding the atonement can "take care of sin" (as you put it), commission of sin inevitably has its consquences, one of which is to make a person ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU.

 

Everyone's a sinner, BYU student or otherwise.

 

But not everyone engages in behavior that makes them ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU.

 

Again, there are plenty of schools that don't set as part of their conditions moral cleanliness and fidelity to sacred covenants. Those who don't like such conditions are free to go there.

[Gray]

I hate when you do this. It makes it very difficult to provide interlinear responses.

 

 

 

Sorry Scott. I will attempt to reform myself. 

 

 

 

 

 

What I mean is the expectation is they will do all they can to avoid the immoral behavior in the first place. And understand that said avoidance is a condition of their continued enrollment.

 

 

 

The avoidance plan is great. Who needs the atonement when you can just avoid sin?

 

 

 

Some sins are more egregious than others and will automatically render a person ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU. (Interesting that you insist on minimizing sins by referring to them as "mistakes.")

 

 

To quote President Uchtdorf, "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you". But if we want to create a hierarchy of sins, why aren't we kicking people out for being judgmental or hypocritical? Jesus as depicted in the gospels seemed to weigh those sins pretty heavily against others. 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the atonement can "take care of sin" (as you put it), commission of sin inevitably has its consquences, one of which is to make a person ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU.

 

 

 

Right, so does BYU believe in the atonement? It doesn't seem to consider it.  This is an artificial consequence of sin, BTW, not a natural or scriptural consequence. 

 

 

 

 

But not everyone engages in behavior that makes them ineligible for certain privileges -- such as enrollment at BYU.

 

Again, there are plenty of schools that don't set as part of their conditions moral cleanliness and fidelity to sacred covenants. Those who don't like such conditions are free to go there.

 

I find BYU's policies to be very troubling, and I think people should definitely consider other options.

[filovirus]

Right, so does BYU believe in the atonement? It doesn't seem to consider it.  This is an artificial consequence of sin, BTW, not a natural or scriptural consequence. 

My understanding of the atonement means in order to get the benefits of it, we must repent. Rejecting the Gospel of Christ seems to break the first great commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind". By actively removing their names from the records of the church shows they reject His gospel, and hence Him who brings it to us.

[Jeanne]

My understanding of the atonement means in order to get the benefits of it, we must repent. Rejecting the Gospel of Christ seems to break the first great commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind". By actively removing their names from the records of the church shows they reject His gospel, and hence Him who brings it to us.

Not once in all of my journey have I lost the love for the Savior and the Lord,,,those Ten Commandments apply all religious denominations that are Christian,  The fact that I may reject the LDS interpretation of gospel, does not mean that I rejectall those loving things that apply to loving God and teachings of Jesus.  You are so wrong there,,,and you know what??  You don't know what I feel,.what I reject and the good things in my life.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

Not once in all of my journey have I lost the love for the Savior and the Lord,,,those Ten Commandments apply all religious denominations that are Christian,  The fact that I may reject the LDS interpretation of gospel, does not mean that I rejectall those loving things that apply to loving God and teachings of Jesus.  You are so wrong there,,,and you know what??  You don't know what I feel,.what I reject and the good things in my life.

You are entitled to reject the validity or divinity of ordinances and covenants associated with the Church of Jesus Christ. But your choice is not binding on others. It is not binding on the BYU administration and it is most definitely not binding on the Church that sponsors it. And it seems to me that university and that church are what is under discussion here. The Church is not under obligation to extend privileges to an unbeliever any more than the unbeliever is obligated to accept the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

You are entitled to reject the validity or divinity of ordinances and covenants associated with the Church of Jesus Christ. But your choice is not binding on others. It is not binding on the BYU administration and it is most definitely not binding on the Church that sponsors it. And it seems to me that university and that church are what is under discussion here. The Church is not under obligation to extend privileges to an unbeliever any more than the unbeliever is obligated to accept the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

I understand what you are saying pertaining to the topic at hand..I was just airing my feelings as to what people assume when talking about those who have left the church.  I do know that nothing is binding here between the LDS Church and I.  What is binding to me is my love for the Savior and His for me. 

[Tacenda]

Not once in all of my journey have I lost the love for the Savior and the Lord,,,those Ten Commandments apply all religious denominations that are Christian, The fact that I may reject the LDS interpretation of gospel, does not mean that I rejectall those loving things that apply to loving God and teachings of Jesus. You are so wrong there,,,and you know what?? You don't know what I feel,.what I reject and the good things in my life.

According to this website you're in good company. http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/world-of-religions.gif

[Avatar4321]

Whatever overlap in mission there may be, it doesn't mean that BYU or BYU-I can -- or should -- admit everyone who wants to enroll. Your analogy is what is nonsensical.

Especially when the Church does not accept everyone to be a member. To be a member you have to be willing to covenant with God to follow Him. If you won't do that, you aren't member. Not because you aren't welcome, but because you don't accept the invitation

[Avatar4321]

I read this..and physically ill by some of the comments supporting this blog/letter whatever.  It seems that to support Christianity one has to keep with a certain interpretation of the scriptures and throw intelligence out the door..mental illness???  Has anyone learned anything at all about any of this?

Funny. It seems we have to throw intelligence out the door to pretend we are being faithful as we support sin.

[filovirus]

Not once in all of my journey have I lost the love for the Savior and the Lord,,,those Ten Commandments apply all religious denominations that are Christian, The fact that I may reject the LDS interpretation of gospel, does not mean that I rejectall those loving things that apply to loving God and teachings of Jesus. You are so wrong there,,,and you know what?? You don't know what I feel,.what I reject and the good things in my life.

I don't know your back story. What I do know is that many people make sacred covenants between themselves and God, be they baptismal covenants or temple covenants. It is not good to willfully break those promises made before God and witnesses. Just because other denominations have many of the truths of the Gospel does not necessarily make them the Lord's church. I don't understand how a person can trade the fullness of the Gospel for something less.

Edited October 21, 2015 by filovirus

[Tacenda]

I don't know your back story. What I do know is that many people make sacred covenants between themselves and God, be they baptismal covenants or temple covenants. It is not good to willfully break those promises made before God and witnesses. Just because other denominations have many of the truths of the Gospel does not necessarily make them the Lord's church. I don't understand how a person can trade the fullness of the Gospel for something less.

What to you is the fullness of the gospel?

[BlueDreams]

I know if it was Jesus' decision, he would have let me in the temple both times too and he would have let me bless the sacrament.

 

To be fair, the comparison isn't actually parallel. As a patron/visitor to the temple you're similar to a person in the audience during sacrament. As someone giving the ordinance you're more in line with a temple worker than temple patron. For those in any authority position or representing the church, etc there's usually more restraints given. As patrons in the temple we're specifically told to never stop a patron from entry into the temple based on clothing. In the same breath there is a definite expectation of appearance for temple workers and you would never be allowed to perform a sealing, baptism, or other ordinances in the temple in a death metal shirt (or any shirt that didn't fit white, long and formal)...and technically you wouldn't actually be able to participate in the ordinances in them either (you were not baptized in said shirt, nor were you the one getting sealed). Patrons are stopped, and directed to fix their outfits, if particular ceremonial clothing are amiss. I'm not saying the bishop was right to call you off the stand, but I just think it fair to point out that the comparison is not 100% there. 

 

With luv,

BD   

[Gray]

My understanding of the atonement means in order to get the benefits of it, we must repent. Rejecting the Gospel of Christ seems to break the first great commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind". By actively removing their names from the records of the church shows they reject His gospel, and hence Him who brings it to us.

 

I wasn't really talking about people rejecting the gospel. I was talking about believers making human mistakes.