Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[sjdawg]

> Who is calling for the financial destruction of the Church?   I'm not aware of that movement out there?

==Oh, there were lots of people doing that.  You can start here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I'm not certain you can equate paying taxes with financial destruction.   I pay taxes.  I assume you pay taxes. I hope neither of us is facing financial destruction

[smac97]

DUP 

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Who are my compatriots?   When did I allege hatred and bigotry by you and yours?   CFR.  Chapter and Verse please

 

You are correct.  I have not seen you allege hatred and bigotry by us.  You are simply defending and advocating for those who have made such allegations.  I should have been more circumspect in my remarks.  I apologize.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[sjdawg]

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

==They appear to be referencing the Bible there.

I don't see any reference to the bible when they call homesexuality abombinable and SSM abhorrent but no matter.  I still support their right to say it.  (they do say it is in God's eyes if that is what you meant)

[smac97]

I'm not certain you can equate paying taxes with financial destruction.   I pay taxes.  I assume you pay taxes. I hope neither of us is facing financial destruction

 

I work for a living.  You work for a living.  We are for-profit entities.  Charitable groups rely on charitable contributions, as by definition they are not-for-profit entities.  And many of your compatriots have called for the government to punish one specific charitable group, the LDS Church, because it exercised its First Amendment rights.

 

And somehow you are okay with that?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[sjdawg]

You are correct.  I have not seen you allege hatred and bigotry by us.  You are simply defending and advocating for those who have made such allegations.  I should have been more circumspect in my remarks.  I apologize.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Thank you.   By the way I am not necessary defending what either side says but I do believe both sides have a right to say it. 

 

for the record, the LDS church did nothing wrong in going door to door promoting a definition of marriage that was compatible to their belief system (even if that means calling SSM abhorrent).   For the record, SSM advocates have every right to disagree with everything the LDS church says about their lifestyle (even if that means calling LDS teachings bigoted).  

[smac97]

I don't see any reference to the bible when they call homesexuality abombinable and SSM abhorrent but no matter.  I still support their right to say it.  (they do say it is in God's eyes if that is what you meant)

 

I don't think we can seriously suggest that Elder Oaks was just fabricating this statement out of thin air, or that he came up with it himself.

 

And I support their right to say it, too.  I also support their right to say it without being punished for it by the government, which is what your compatriots have called for.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[thatjimguy]

True.

But that doesn't change the result of their choice either.  Reality isn't subjective.

 

But viewpoints are, just like yours and mine is a viewpoint. And we wish these things to be true, not because of perfect knowledge, but because we wish them to be true.

 

So when you call it reality, it's really based on viewpoint, not a perfect knowledge of it.

[sjdawg]

I work for a living.  You work for a living.  We are for-profit entities.  Charitable groups rely on charitable contributions, as by definition they are not-for-profit entities.  And many of your compatriots have called for the government to punish one specific charitable group, the LDS Church, because it exercised its First Amendment rights.

 

And somehow you are okay with that?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I'm ok with Churches paying taxes.  I'm ok with specific organizations losing their tax exempt status if they overstep their boundaries. (I don't believe the LDS Church did in this instance and since they still have tax exempt status I'm guessing the government also feels that way)  

[sjdawg]

I don't think we can seriously suggest that Elder Oaks was just fabricating this statement out of thin air, or that he came up with it himself.

 

 

-Smac

Yeah your right.   A former justice of the Utah Supreme Court probably isn't smart enough to formulate thoughts/statements on his own.  (for the record I am kidding.   I have no doubts that Elder Oaks is very intelligent)

[smac97]

Deleted.  I'm calling it a night.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac 

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[sjdawg]

  I also support their right to say it without being punished for it by the government

I'm not aware of a punishment that the Church has faced so I guess they do have that right.  

[smac97]

Yeah your right.   A former justice of the Utah Supreme Court probably isn't smart enough to formulate thoughts/statements on his own.  (for the record I am kidding.   I have no doubts that Elder Oaks is very intelligent)

 

I was not speaking of his intelligence.  I was speaking of his priesthood authority.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[sjdawg]

Deleted.  I'm calling it a night.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac 

Good night my friend.   See you tomorrow.  I enjoy a good debate even if we don't agree on things.  

[sjdawg]

I was not speaking of his intelligence.  I was speaking of his priesthood authority.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smack

And I was just joking.   I understood what you were saying.  I hope I did not offend.  I was just trying to lighten things up.

[smac97]

Good night my friend.   See you tomorrow.  I enjoy a good debate even if we don't agree on things.  

 

Same here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[why me]

If mormons can accept that joseph smith was not a polygamist and accept the reasons why the RLDS was created, then they should consider it. But I would think that most lds would find the idea that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist a hard rock to swallow. Why? They must believe in the book of mormon but believe that the current lds leadership is in apostacy. I think that this would be difficult to believe also.

 

Members who are considering a new faith over the policy should join one of the other major churches that claim truth: the catholic church. Sure, its history is not that great in the past, but it can still trace its origins back to peter and it has nothing to do with the joseph smith and the book of mormon. Much better to make a clean break if one wishes to make a break.

 

Sorry if I put a dent in the COC membership drive from the OP. .

[sjdawg]

Same here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

We have debated a lot tonight and I know I got under your skin occasionally.  At times I was playing devils advocate and at times I disagreed with you completely.  For the record here is what I believe.

 

I believe in the right to freedom of expression.  I believe in the right to freedom of religion.  I believe that we do not have to agree and that conversation on "hard or difficult" subject matters is a necessity.  And I believe that many of us may never agree with one another, but that we can still be friends despite our difference of opinion because that's part of what I find so interesting about people.

Edited November 16, 2015 by sjdawg

[california boy]

I think you are discounting, to a significant degree, the hostility aimed at us by both secular and sectarian critics of our faith. There has been much spoken against us in bad faith, which remarks have had an adverse influence on "the perception most have about the church."

 

I don't think that's speaking in "fairness". Our faith and its adherents have been significantly slandered by your compatriots. Allegations by you and yours of hatred and bigotry by me and mine arising from Prop 8, the recent changes to the CHI, and in other instances are quite common. And they are, as leveled against the Brethren and the vast majority of the Saints, manifestly false. And yet here you are, saying that you "don't even have to explain how that happened," as if these pernicious lies are clinically objective recitations of fact that "everyone already knows", and that the perceptions arising from these lies are "not ... incorrect."

With respect, I reject your "In all fairness" remark. As stated, it is nothing close to fairness.  To the contrary, your the-Mormons-only-have-themselves-to-blame-for-people-disliking-them-and-this-is-such-an-obvious-point-I-need-not-explain-it schtick does not impress. At all.  It really does need an explanation.  So I'd like you to pony up rather than blame the victim of recent calumnies and treat such an offensive assertion like it's a tautology or something.  

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I am not going to spend a lot of energy on responding to your rant.  It is just not important to me.  I have long ago moved on about Prop 8. But I stand by my original statement

 

I am not disagreeing with anything that you wrote, but the position the church finds itself in did not just happen out of thin air.  For the most part, the church itself created the perception most have about the church.

 

 

Has the church been accused unfairly of hatred and bigotry by SOME people? yes.  On the other hand you also accused me of hatred and bigotry in your post.  CFR  WHERE I HAVE EVER ACCUSED THE CHURCH OF HATRED AND BIGOTRY, EVER

 

For someone who seems so indigent that the church has been falsely accused of hatred and bigotry, you certainly have no problem hurling the VERY SAME false claim at me.  Shame on you.  

 

Fulfill the CFR or apologize and withdraw your insinuatory remark leveled against me.

[smac97]

I am not going to spend a lot of energy on responding to your rant.  It is just not important to me.  I have long ago moved on about Prop 8. But I stand by my original statement

 

 

Has the church been accused unfairly of hatred and bigotry by SOME people? yes.  On the other hand you also accused me of hatred and bigotry in your post.  CFR  WHERE I HAVE EVER ACCUSED THE CHURCH OF HATRED AND BIGOTRY, EVER

 

For someone who seems so indigent that the church has been falsely accused of hatred and bigotry, you certainly have no problem hurling the VERY SAME false claim at me.  Shame on you.  

 

Fulfill the CFR or apologize and withdraw your insinuatory remark leveled against me.

 

Withdrawn with apologies.

 

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

Smac,

I'm not okay with the consequences because I don't believe all consequences to be fair. Nowhere in my post did I allude to or demonstrate that I thought they were appropriate. Why would you assume such? Is it because of our past disagreements? If so, I wish you'd asked first.

Nonetheless, I hope the church it's best in all it's endeavors.

[Damien the Leper]

How is the "safety" of such families threatened by the LDS Church?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

The safety of relationship can be at risk if religious policy becomes divisive. At which point, family comes before the church. Absolutely. Devotion to the LDS church is not synonymous with devotion to God and this should always be remembered first and foremost.

[Damien the Leper]

Withdrawn with apologies.

 

-Smac

The rep point is intentional.

[Damien the Leper]

Community of Christ hasn't denied the polygamy issue in several decades.

And this has gone off topic even further.

Boom boom...pow!

[Meadowchik]

In the age of the internet, nobody in the Church leadership should think they can publish something in the handbook and expect only bishops ot know about it. The moment they made that revision, it was going to be leaked by someone. The only question was when.

By the same token, as church members under covenant to sustain, we should be duly respectful of context and audience, we should also be careful about villifying the intent of others or exaggerating our protest. By not being careful in or words and reactions, we can make it harder, even untenable, for those directly affected who are trying to underdstand policy.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Meadowchik