rockpond Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 To give people like you something to be outraged about so we can sneak the stuff you would really hate by unnoticed. It's working perfectly. Hmmm... I don't think it is.
rockpond Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Yes, but people are stupid. You leave something alone long enough or are not explicit enough and people start to wonder if the teaching is passe. The same thing happened with gambling. The church has historically been unambiguously opposed to gambling but when online poker sites and poker tournaments showed up on TV President Hinckley had to take part of a General Conference address to address the situation and reaffirm it again. The people who are convinced same sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have even thicker skulls. So they decided to get through to the "thick skulled" members by placing a policy in a book not published to the general membership rather than saying something in general conference or reading a letter over the pulpit?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) So they decided to get through to the "thick skulled" members by placing a policy in a book not published to the general membership rather than saying something in general conference or reading a letter over the pulpit? They have repeated this in General Conference, there have been letters, and people still did not get the message. Judging by the social media furor generated the best way to get it through to people is in an obscure manual. Who but a prophet would have guessed that? Edited November 24, 2015 by The Nehor 5
KevinG Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 So they decided to get through to the "thick skulled" members by placing a policy in a book not published to the general membership rather than saying something in general conference or reading a letter over the pulpit? My guess would be that there were enough questions from Bishoprics and Stake Presidents on how to handle these unusual situations that there was a need to clarify in manuals. I seem to remember stories of openly gay bishopric members and other similar circumstances being touted in social media a couple of years back. 2
The Nehor Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Hmmm... I don't think it is. You mean you did notice how we are rounding up people and holding them in apostate concentration camps? Well.....crap. I have to go make a call. 1
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) The people who are convinced same sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have even thicker skulls. Huh... Funny how anatomy can make a world of difference in the metaphors we use... I would say the people who are convinced about same-sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have more open hearts. Edited November 24, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) I seem to remember stories of openly gay bishopric members and other similar circumstances being touted in social media a couple of years back. Are you referring to Mitch Mayne, the openly gay (but unmarried and non-partnered) Executive Secretary....? This new policy is completely unrelated and doesn't address or prohibit church service in situations like his. Edited November 24, 2015 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Married gay people have chosen to make a mockery of God's institution of marriage by living a lifestyle that can never end in a condition where they could be saved in the kingdom of God. JAHS, There are many straight and gay people who belong to gay-affirming religious Faiths, and who's genuine, sincere beliefs include the concept that God approves and authorizes committed same-sex relationships just as much as God approves of committed opposite-sex relationships. Clergy members of such Faiths bless and sanctify marriages between same-sex couples. While I understand that you may just as sincerely believe that such religions are misguided and 'wrong,' I believe it's inaccurate to accuse such couples of deliberately "chosen to make a mockery of God's institution of marriage." They are just as sincere and genuine, and the fact that their beliefs differs from yours doesn't mean they are "choosing to make a mockery" of your beliefs about God. Ditto for non-religious beliefs who, having no belief on God at all, simply sincerely and genuinely desire to protect their relationships and children by laying claim to the benefits and willingly shouldering the responsibilities that come through the legal, non-religious contract of civil marriage. Such couples are not "choosing to make a mockery" of your beliefs about God. 1
Zakuska Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 We had a gay Church Patriarch too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith_(presiding_patriarch)
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Are you referring to Mitch Mayne, the openly gay (but unmarried and non-partnered) Executive Secretary....? This new policy is completely unrelated and doesn't address or prohibit church service in situations like his.In any case, an executive secretary is not a bishopric member. He holds an ancillary position, as does the ward clerk or assistant ward clerk(s). The bishopric consists of the bishop and two counselors. Period.
KevinG Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Are you referring to Mitch Mayne, the openly gay (but unmarried and non-partnered) Executive Secretary....? This new policy is completely unrelated and doesn't address or prohibit church service in situations like his. It relates in as much as there is wider social acceptance of open gays in church roles. As I said before my suspicion is that because there is wider social acceptance (a positive) there may also be confusion about what is and what is not acceptable (something that needed to be clarified). I knew a couple about 20 years ago who decided that the husband was perfectly OK to live with a gay lover because they were already sealed, and the family would work it out. That is the kind of thing I think this policy was designed to avoid. 3
KevinG Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 We had a gay Church Patriarch too.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith_(presiding_patriarch) ...who was released from his responsibilities and later repented, as opposed to lobbying for the church to view his sin as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 This part really confuses me. Why would the church discourage a committed relationship by punishing it more harshly than a promiscuous lifestyle? Is it because they are afraid of normalizing SSM even at the risk of encouraging non-committed relationships? It's very strange.I would think the Church would not approve of sinful relationships of any sort, committed or otherwise. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Sounds like the protections were already in place for not baptizing someone when leaders agreed it was unwise. I wonder why we needed a special policy for gay couples?Because it seems so many are refusing to get the message. That would be my guess, anyway. 2
Zakuska Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) ...who was released from his responsibilities and later repented, as opposed to lobbying for the church to view his sin as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.He repented for commiting Adultuery against his wife not for having an Alternative lifestyle. Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska
KevinG Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 He repented for commiting Adultuery. not for having an Alternative lifestyle. A distinction without a difference. Unless of course you want to lobby for homosexuality as an acceptable choice on par with heterosexual marriage and sanctioned polygamy. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 He repented for commiting Adultuery against his wife not for having an Alternative lifestyle.I don't think he would have regarded himself as having an "alternative lifestyle." He recognized his homosexual behavior was wrong and was determined not to continue it. But I've acted against my better judgment in responding to this attempted thread derail.
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 In any case, an executive secretary is not a bishopric member. He holds an ancillary position, as does the ward clerk or assistant ward clerk(s). The bishopric consists of the bishop and two counselors. Period. Yes. I'm aware of the above. Mr. Mayne's service is the only example that I'm aware of that matches KevinG's description of misrepresentations of "stories of an openly gay bishopric members and other similar circumstances being touted in social media a couple of years back." Which is the only reason I brought it up.
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) I would think the Church would not approve of sinful relationships of any sort, committed or otherwise. That being said, that which makes one relationship "sinful" vs. that which makes another one "sinful" is merely because God may authorize one relationship, without authorizing another one. I.e., polygamy is "sinful" when it's prohibited by God, but is included in "the new and everlasting covenant" of celestial marriage when it's endorsed by God. After all, according to Joseph Smith, That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." "God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation." The above quote, especially in light of the LDS church's history with authorized polygamy and it's current stance that polygamy is apostasy, is what makes me chuckle when it comes to individuals who assert that the church's recent policy change should be taken as a firm and final declaration that the church will NEVER authorize same-sex relationships--"because, look!--the church is SO against same-sex marriage that it's now APOSTASY!"" Um............ Yeah... No. The church says that polygamy is "apostasy..." but only until God says otherwise again. That is the strength of Joseph Smith's quote above about the strength of continuing revelation. According to the fourteen fundamentals of following the prophet, the living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, and Latter-day Saints are cautioned to beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence. Edited November 24, 2015 by Daniel2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Yes. I'm aware of the above. Mr. Mayne's service is the only example that I'm aware of that matches KevinG's description of misrepresentations of "stories of an openly gay bishopric members and other similar circumstances being touted in social media a couple of years back." Which is the only reason I brought it up.I understand that. I only wanted to make the point clear, as there was some confusion on this when it was discussed on this board a few years ago. 1
Zakuska Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) Unless of course you want to lobby for homosexuality as an acceptable choice on par with heterosexual marriage and sanctioned polygamy.Actually I will... Christ did say this about marriage... "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." He then lists 3 types of people who are excused from the commandment to marry. One group on that list is homosexuals. This new policy goes against the Prophet Isaiah: Isaiah 56 He promises it shall be general, without respect of persons 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.2 Apparently this promise of the Lord doesn't include the outcast gays in the World. Here we see gays receiving better blessings than us Heteros. Our church continues to cast them out. Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska
busybee Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 The bishopric consists of the bishop and two counselors. Period.Who have been endowed and are married (to a woman).(Just in case their was any confusion)A bishop definitely has to be married, so I'm not buying the openly gay Bishop story!! I stand to be corrected about whether the councillors on a Bishopric have to be married. They certainly have to be endowed.
KevinG Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Actually I will... Christ did say this about marriage... "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." He then lists 3 types of people who are excused from the commandment to marry. One group on that list is homosexuals.This new policy goes against the Prophet Isaiah:Isaiah 56He promises it shall be general, without respect of persons3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.2 Apparently this promise of the Lord doesn't include the outcast gays in the World. Here we see gays receiving better blessings than us Heteros. Our church continues to cast them out. Are there any in that promise who become part of the household of faith without repentance? There are many gays and strangers who have been welcomed into the covenant people, but it was always on condition of repentance and "joining themselves to the LORD". 2
Daniel2 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) Actually I will... Christ did say this about marriage... "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." He then lists 3 types of people who are excused from the commandment to marry. One group on that list is homosexuals.This new policy goes against the Prophet Isaiah:Isaiah 56He promises it shall be general, without respect of persons3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.2 Wow.... Zakuska... Thanks so much for sharing the scripture, above. Despite having read the Bible many years ago, that never stood out to me until now. The portion I bolded and underlined above REALLY gives scriptural weight to the concept that gays and lesbians (e.k.a. "eunuchs") could be given membership and a place in the Celestial Kingdom, just as I've been theorizing for the last several years. It's worth noting that their place shall be "better than sons or daughters," and they will likewise be given "an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off"--but it DOESN'T say they will become fruitful or multiply (a.k.a. that they'll miraculously 'become heterosexual and procreative'). Again, that matches what I've been saying that gay and lesbian sons and daughters of god would fulfill a distinct, different purpose than the "fruitful" trees of those that beget offspring of their own. Edited November 24, 2015 by Daniel2
The Nehor Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Huh... Funny how anatomy can make a world of difference in the metaphors we use... I would say the people who are convinced about same-sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have more open hearts. I wish I could agree with you. It would make things much easier all around but I can't.
Recommended Posts