rodheadlee Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 My apologies if it sounded as if I was blaming religion for the AIDS epidemic, OR putting words in your mouth. Neither was my intention. I said what I meant and I meant what I said--nothing more. ;-(No problem.
Bob Crockett Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Nothing to yawn about. I think John wants to do the right thing but has deceived himself. 1
Teancum Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Nothing to yawn about. I think John wants to do the right thing but has deceived himself.How so?And I was yawning about another jab about anonymity. Edited November 17, 2015 by Teancum
Damien the Leper Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Unfortunately, I suspect that in the long run, the hope that same sex "marriage" would "cure" homosexual men of promiscuity will prove to have been as futile as "reparative therapy" has been. I would be happy to be wrong about that, though.It's not just gay men. It's men. If you want men to stop being promiscuous then we need to find a way for them to stop having sex altogether. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that the most common difference between those who support the policy and those who don't is their general support or lack thereof for SSM within the Church itself. I am sure there are exceptions to this, but this is a general rule. I think this is what really fulled the uproar. I attend multiple singles wards right now due to callings and personal obligations. The general sentiment seems to be that young members of the Church are in favor of SSM or on board with the Church condoning it. Yet, in my experience, the exact opposite is true and the VAST, VAST majority of our YSA aged members support the brethren and the policy. I think Facebook and other social media where it is discussed creates a bit of vacuum because those of us who support the policy have been bullied into silence because we will be misunderstood or labeled. Whereas Church feels like a safe place to express feelings and testimony. The last few weeks that is what I have seen on Sundays. I made our missionary son aware of the backlash only so he would be forewarned in case it should ever come up in his work and ministry. He has only made oblique references to it, but his words are full of wisdom. In addition to admonishing us to regularly read scriptures and pray as a family, he included this in the email we have just received within the last hour or so: Continue to trust the church and all their policies. They have them for good reasons, and it is very reassuring to see how calmly the Apostles react to opposition and wickedness. I'm confident this is reflective of the sentiment you say is predominant among the vast majority of our Young Single Adults in the Church. Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 It's not just gay men. It's men. If you want men to stop being promiscuous then we need to find a way for them to stop having sex altogether. Come on Val. The fact that homosexual men are way more promiscuous than straight men is so well known it's hardly worth arguing about. See, for instance, this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201006/homosexuality-queer-problem
Calm Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 . It was mainly because of his statement:It was solely because of that I gave it. I don't always agree with everything a poster says, sometimes strongly disagree and still will rep a point for what I see as a topic that should be examined made in part of a post. I might not read posts the same way today as I did yesterday, but that part did resonated with me and so I repped him. Almost didn't because of the earlier part, but I felt an explanation was needed as well and my rep was shorthand for that. 1
Storm Rider Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 It's not just gay men. It's men. If you want men to stop being promiscuous then we need to find a way for them to stop having sex altogether. Val, it seems to me that there has been a Way to assist each individual to learn not to be subservient to carnal desires. I have a degree of familiarity with Eastern Orthodoxy; I thought you had converted and were following that path. Am i mistaken? Regardless, almost all Christian churches teach that conquering the carnal desires is an objective and fruit of following Christ. Should this Way discounted now; is that what you are suggesting?
Mystery Meat Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I made our missionary son aware of the backlash only so he would be forewarned in case it should ever come up in his work and ministry. He has only made oblique references to it, but his words are full of wisdom. In addition to admonishing us to regularly read scriptures and pray as a family, he included this in the email we have just received within the last hour or so: I'm confident this is reflective of the sentiment you say is predominant among the vast majority of our Young Single Adults in the Church. I tend to agree.
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I, for one, would welcome a sex-positive version of Mormonism. We already have one. If you mean a "sexually libertine in terms of partners" version you may have to try one of our apostate offshoots.
thatjimguy Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 As a PR guy, I would say it would be best to make sure that any future material that goes out that has anything to do with hot button topics, be closely looked at by the PR department. Just a quick look over to make sure everything is in order. Now in the case of this handbook. It makes things a bit different. That is because of the dry, unemotional nature of how rules read. I am sure, had there not been a leak, that the PR department would have a plan to introduce the new changes before they came out. 1
JLHPROF Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 We already have one. If you mean a "sexually libertine in terms of partners" version you may have to try one of our apostate offshoots. If you are referring to the fundamentalists, you might be surprised how conservative and prudish they are about sex compared to the average Church member. Numbers of spouses don't necessarily mean libertine.
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 If you are referring to the fundamentalists, you might be surprised how conservative and prudish they are about sex compared to the average Church member. Numbers of spouses don't necessarily mean libertine. I thought we had at least one libertine spinoff. Definitely not talking about the fundamentalist groups pretending they live in 1850. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 One would think that all members and perspective members need to know the rules they are subject to. Unrighteous dominion is a thing, and it's only fair to allow members to know what the rules are so that they can know the specific consequences of their actions and can evaluate whether their leaders are treating them according to the rules or not.Here.Read this:http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook?cid=HP_FR_11-13-2015_dPAD_fMNWS_xLIDyL2-1_ One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations. No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance. 3
sjdawg Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 The handbook articulation does not prevent a bishop from writing the First Presidency to ask for a waiver of the policy preventing baptism or ordination when the bishop has inspiration to ask for it. Does anyone have any experience with a Bishop asking the First Presidency for a waiver of a policy? I'm curious how often it happens (with any policy, not specific only to SSM policies). I don't recall it ever happening when I was in a bishopric but I don't also don't ever remember running across a unique circumstance where a policy exemption would have been required or warranted. Is that the correct process for applying for a waiver? The Bishop would write a letter to the First Presidency?
Calm Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Do you want specific details or just it happening? I know of a bishop who wrote to get an exception for a woman to be sealed to her living husband without having to cancel the sealing to her dead husband and it was granted, but I don't know the process though it involved writing a letter. This is being allowed as an exception now as I've heard a number of reports of it being done, but knowledge of the possibility looks to still being gained by word of mouth as I don't believe the possible exception is mentioned in the handbook.
sjdawg Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Do you want specific details or just it happening? I know of a bishop who wrote to get an exception for a woman to be sealed to her living husband without having to cancel the sealing to her dead husband and it was granted, but I don't know the process though it involved writing a letter. This is being allowed as an exception now as I've heard a number of reports of it being done, but knowledge of the possibility looks to still being gained by word of mouth as I don't believe the possible exception is mentioned in the handbook.Thanks. I was just curious about how frequently it happens and if that was the correct procedure (Bishop writes direct to FP, or does it have to go up through all the various levels for approval first (Stake President, Area President, etc)
Zakuska Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) According to the Apostle Jude, the sins that brought about the divine decree of destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah were fornication (sexual relations outside of marriage) and "going after strange flesh," (an allusion to homosexuality). I find it interesting how often the flowing excerpt from the New Testament is almost always left out of debates centered on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.I wonder if asserting that the Apostles and Prophets of today's Church are teaching doctrines and policies that are "against the Gospel" falls into Jude's category of "speak(ing) evil of dignities?Where do you get the idea that "heteros sarxs" (mistranslated in our KJV as 'strange flesh') means homosexuality? I know the bible dictionary and footnote says it means homosexuality but we all know that Bible dictionaries aren't scripture and often contain mistakes. (eg. Look at your maps... in the Bible Dictionary there's a ? where Mt. Sinai is supposed to be. Paul tells us its in Arabia on the other side of the Persian gulf. and it IS look up Real Mt. Sinai)Jude 1:7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after (G2087) strange (G4561) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.Heteroshttp://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm2087 héteros – another (of a different kind). 2087 /héteros ("another but distinct in kind") stands in contrast to 243 /állos ("another of the same kind"). 2087 /héteros ("another of a different quality") emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).[2087 (héteros) sometimes refers to "another" of a different class group or type (as in Plato; Oxy. papyri).]Sarx[http://biblehub.com/greek/4561.htm4561 sárks properly, flesh ("carnal"), merely of human origin or empowerment.[4561 /sárks ("flesh") is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20).]NAS Exhaustive ConcordanceWord Origina prim. wordDefinitionfleshNASB Translationbodily (1), bodily condition (1), body (2), earth (1), earthly (1), fellow countrymen (1), flesh (129), fleshly (4), life (3), man (1), mankind (1), nation (1), personally (1).I guess this could be argued to be a veiled reference to bestiality. Animals are a "different kind of flesh" than humans are, but do we have any accounts of the Sodomites being into bestiality?Its more likely that this is referring to "strangers"... or "foreigners" the Sodomites weren't hospitable to foreigners even Lot himself as evidenced by Gen 19:9Gen 199 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to asojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.They thought Lot was concealing foreign spys and they were there to bring judgement on them. (Which technically they were) Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska 1
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 This is all frence to me. I would like to start a thread about what is on my mind with respect to Mormonism, and find out if anyone can address it.
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I find Mormons I encounter (I live less than a 100 yards away from a Mormon Church) are embarrased by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates.
Saint Sinner Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I thought this interesting.http://timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm Edited November 17, 2015 by Saint Sinner
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I find Mormons I encounter (I live less than a 100 yards away from a Mormon Church) are embarrased by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates.Well, I'm a Mormon, and I'm not embarrassed at all by my faith and not in the least afraid to discuss it with apostates. Moreover, unlike most of those who participate here (and unlike you, for that matter), I post under my real name. There, I've countered your unsubstantiated anecdote with one of my own. I have thus neutralized your argument. Furthermore, I know a lot of Mormons, and the vast majority of them are not embarrassed by their faith and would not hesitate to discuss it with apostates. So the set of all such Mormons in my acquaintance probably far exceeds those in your acquaintance. Again, I've neutralized your anecdotal argument. Checkmate. Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I can't start a thread but what I wanted to cover was this (my writing in response is in blue). 1. Intelligence is the material from which all persons but God the Father are made. The status of the Son and the Holy Ghost is unclear. God always existed in this version and created material to create intelligences to create humans. Or it means there was this material alongside God always having existed. 2. Intelligence is the material from which all persons, including God are made. This is purely atheistic since atheists say material created all persons including any alleged gods. It does not distinguish whether this was an infinite regress of cause and effects or merely always existing state of material unto itself that brought everything into existence.3. Each person, including God, exists eternally as an individual entity (the dominant view today).This is arbitrary and fails to answer the necessary question: where do these others come from as there can only be one uncreated Creator?Two is the opposite of three.All three fail even one, because God is ALONE FROM EVERLASTING so there is no material beside God, and He does not need to create material to create humans. He can simply call man made in His image into being. When we speak of Mormon material we are not talking about all the matter in the universe, but some supernatural material.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I find Mormons I encounter (I live less than a 100 yards away from a Mormon Church) are embarrased by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates. That's right. No-one ever heard of a Mormon missionary. 3
Bernard Gui Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I find Mormons I encounter (I live less than a 100 yards away from a Mormon Church) are embarrased by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates.No better place to discuss it and no better time than now.
Recommended Posts