Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 No better place to discuss it and no better time than now. Even Mormon Missionaries are very standoffish and don't want to discuss for any length of time. I would know. They come to my door about once a month it seems sometimes. I show them why Jesus created all things, and I try other approaches but they plead ignorance usually and say they don't have much time to discuss.
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 For example, I tell them Joseph said there were people who lived on the moon who lived 1000 years, but they are totally unaware of this. They are unaware of the Egyptial burial that Joseph claimed was a human sacrifice.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 For example, I tell them Joseph said there were people who lived on the moon who lived 1000 years, but they are totally unaware of this. They are unaware of the Egyptial burial that Joseph claimed was a human sacrifice. So you try to ambush them with standard anti-Mormon talking points, they realise what you are up to, and so they take their leave. Very good. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. But it is disingenuous to claim that they are thereby "embarrased[sic] by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates." They're just getting out of the contentious situation. They teach by the power of the Holy Ghost. Contention drives away the Spirit and invites the Adversary, whom you serve, instead. But I'll discuss your silly anti-Mormon talking points. Let's start with this one: For example, I tell them Joseph said there were people who lived on the moon who lived 1000 years, but they are totally unaware of this. If you are going to tell them that that's what Joseph said, then I hope you have a contemporary source that reports it. Because if you don't, then you are not being honest. So please name that contemporary source. I could save you some time, because I know what the real source is. But I want to see if you are embarrassed by your unfaith, and afraid to discuss it with informed Latter-day Saints. 1
Bernard Gui Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Still would like to here from those who are upset about the Handbook changes.....where do you want the Church to go regarding the law of chastity?
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 My main talking point is the Bible says God is alone from everlasting, so I would ask why would they reject what the Bible clearly says?
Faithful Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 How is intelligences from pre-existing material any different than atheism?
sjdawg Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Did you ever notice that one set of ordinances happens in the temple and others don't?? What kind of question is that? No comparison. It's the difference between public and private. It's why we don't have internet cameras in our bedrooms. Very basic stuffYou don't have an internet camera in your bedroom? weird.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I should have thought that the Law of Chastity had pretty much been repealed or abandoned by Western civilization, which leaves the Mormons still hanging in there with that law as a major part of the convenantal obligation taken at the Temple. However, it is all voluntary, as it should be. I see no likelihood of the Mormons ever repealing it.
busybee Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 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.Right-o from now on no one gets baptised until they have signed that they have read the 'terms and conditions' Got it. Edited November 17, 2015 by busybee
Mars Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Faithful, don't co-opt threads to take them in a new direction. Participate in good faith, get a few posts under your belt, and start a new thread.
rongo Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 In VERY few cases is the word "mandatory" used but even in those cases one must judge whether or not the individual case fits into what is "mandatory". It might say something like "If the person is in this circumstance then action xyz is "mandatory"- you still have to judge whether or not the circumstance fits the recommendation. Any two people could read the manual and get three different interpretations- that is why it is always up to the bishop to make a decision after praying about it. The church really IS run by the spirit, not handbooks. Frankly, the handbook is ignored or adjusted all the time by individual circumstances.Not only this, but even for things the handbook says are mandatory, there can be (and are) exceptions granted by the First Presidency. I have firsthand experience with some of these (through helping people with the application process). I like your computer analogy. The irony is that the very people who complain about the handbooks, policies, rules, etc. being Pharisaical are the ones who are obsessed with wording, etc. in the policies. As Elder Oaks taught, we teach the rule in the Church, not the exception. The exceptions are handled case-by-case with authority, but are not discussed in manuals or handbooks.
Popular Post rongo Posted November 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 17, 2015 I wonder if there are any people who got caught up in the mass resignation mania who wish that they had been a little more patient? It seems that some people got swept away with emotion, and I wonder if there is any buyer's remorse a few days later. It seems to me that nearly 100% of those who resigned their membership over this issue were already on the fringe. That is, they were already critical of doctrine and policy to begin with, or had pre-existing deep-seated issues. While it's fashionable to tout "active, believing members" who got swept away in the mania, I see very little evidence that this actually happened. In talking to my stake president Sunday, he told me that our large stake has had only one resignation over this (I had asked about several gay members of the stake we have both worked with, and none of them were among them). I think the attempts to inflate the participation at the Salt Lake mass resignation event (thousands!) is pretty telling. And, I have the feeling that many of the people who were there were a) non-members and b) attend things like that a lot. I found the frequent mention of the attorney with a table and forms to expedite to be very odd. The process is already simple enough as it is. No attorney is needed, nor does an attorney helping with forms expedite anything. Media circus, and blatant attempts at making this seem bigger than it was. 9
Storm Rider Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 For example, I tell them Joseph said there were people who lived on the moon who lived 1000 years, but they are totally unaware of this. They are unaware of the Egyptial burial that Joseph claimed was a human sacrifice. Oh God help me. These are some of the worst forms of anti-Mormon stupidity and are not worth the time or the effort. In fact, as long as you continue in this type of silliness, not many will waste the time discussing anything with you. Further, most Latter-day Saints will not Bible bash with you because we find it unproductive. However, every now and then you will find one that will take a rip at some born again Christian that has a very narrow understanding of scripture, yet wants to show the world that they know something those stupid Mormons don't. Most of us have been around for a while and we have discussed theology with erudite individuals of other faiths. It is an honest exchange of beliefs and scriptural knowledge. You have played your cards poorly. 4
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted November 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 17, 2015 Yes, but it is so dramatic to be able to point to an "attorney" who will bring these poor, defenseless cult members into the light. Yes, the chap is a true knight on a white horse fighting against the mindless hordes of Mormons that have chained their members into submission. These events are propaganda at its worst. It is difficult for me to respect them because of all the blathering and posturing. Just flaky people supporting flaky behavior. 9
Anijen Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 My thoughts is this; a very small minority has an incredible large public relations department. As has been pointed out most protesters were not LDS, but already excommunicated or never were LDS, very few were. If like my family we found out on Facebook and were a bit alarmed at the harsh spin that Facebookers put on it. After studying it out and realizing the policy of SSM has never changed. The recent Supreme Court decision making SSM legal prompted a handbook update, simple as that. 4
Tacenda Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 http://mormonstories.org/John is asking for respectful suggestions for questions when he interviews the recently resigned granddaughter of Russell M . Ballard. That's probably devastating for Elder Ballard and his wife. Is it ironic that JD may have leaked the leaked info that may have started her on that road? Not saying he's at fault, if that's in her heart anyway. It may not even be tied to the new policy, I might have jumped to conclusions. 1
Tacenda Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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.I disagree, throughout my lifetime I've seen them treated in a hands off way. And now in my inactivity, still attend church, in things like VT'g etc. I feel like I'm getting the same treatment.
Popular Post Buckeye Posted November 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) My understanding is that the attorney helps by serving as an intermediary. By giving him power of attorney, the church will interact with the attorney rather than send a local leader to speak with the individual. Bishops and Stake Presidents are normally good about this issue - basically just checking with the individual to make sure the resignation is legit. But sometimes the local leader can be overbearing. I can see why a resigning member would find it beneficial to have the interaction come through her legal counsel than face-to-face (especially if its a free service). As for who exactly is resigning, it shouldn't be surprising that most of the people are going through their "last straw" rather than their "first straw." But as Tyler Glenn of the Neon Trees reminds us (https://twitter.com/tylerinacoma?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) the last straw is a valid as the first. And regardless of activity level, the act of resignation has real affects for the church, individual, and family. It shouldn't be treated lightly by either the individual or us members. Sentiments of "oh, it's just a bunch of inactives anyway" is not that helpful. Every child is precious. IMO, the bigger worry is not the shift of those who actually resign, but the shift in those who remain. I view the resignations as the tip of the iceberg. For every member who resigned, there are many more who begin questioning things, stop participating fully, walk away from activity, or other take other actions that - while short of resigning - still build barriers between them and the community. Sometimes this is necessary (as it is with resigning) but it's still sad to have to experience. And it should concern us all because the cracks that begin today may develop into resignation in the years ahead. Finally, if you really want to know the thinking of those who have left, you should just talk to them. Edited November 17, 2015 by Buckeye 8
Ares Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 The title has been changed. Please be respectful.
Mars Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 it does concern me, but when someone's mind is made up to stay or leave - what can i do? i already try very hard - VERY HARD - to maintain good and positive relationships with people around me. i won't be friends very long with people who think i'm part of the machinations that result in harm to children - because of the disagreement over what the policy is and does. to wit -- if there is a disagreement over whether or not homosexual relationships are contrary to God's will, and therefore the policy is interpreted under those auspices as either harmful or otherwise - then what am i to do? i don't think i can do anything. on the other side of the coin, i don't stay friends very long with folks who think gay people are icky, or who are up in arms over the campbell soup commercial, or any similar thing. 1
Ares Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 How is intelligences from pre-existing material any different than atheism? You are new so you get a warning. Don't derail threads with off topics posts. Read the Board Guidelines please: http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules
Tacenda 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'd imagine a lot of missionaries will be hit with the information in the fairly new Gospel Essays and now the policy on SSM. Hopefully they will be given information to help them vs the old "leave them in the dark style". Never understood not giving them info on church history that is controversial. So that when anti's went after them they don't look naive when/if denying it.
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 http://mormonstories.org/John is asking for respectful suggestions for questions when he interviews the recently resigned granddaughter of Russell M . Ballard. That's probably devastating for Elder Ballard and his wife. Is it ironic that JD may have leaked the leaked info that may have started her on that road? Not saying he's at fault, if that's in her heart anyway. It may not even be tied to the new policy, I might have jumped to conclusions. Thanks. This is a good reminder to all those who think we are better off without the resigners. I'm sure Elder Ballard doesn't feel that way. 4
jaberwocky Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Do you remember the good old days when every town had its one old gay guy that lived at the end of the street, and you had to cross to the other side when you walked to school? Much simpler times...
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 it does concern me, but when someone's mind is made up to stay or leave - what can i do? i already try very hard - VERY HARD - to maintain good and positive relationships with people around me. i won't be friends very long with people who think i'm part of the machinations that result in harm to children - because of the disagreement over what the policy is and does. to wit -- if there is a disagreement over whether or not homosexual relationships are contrary to God's will, and therefore the policy is interpreted under those auspices as either harmful or otherwise - then what am i to do? i don't think i can do anything. on the other side of the coin, i don't stay friends very long with folks who think gay people are icky, or who are up in arms over the campbell soup commercial, or any similar thing. If there is no room for beneficial discussion of the topic then let it lie. But that doesn't mean there is nothing else to build (or continue) your relationship around.
Recommended Posts