KevinG Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 23 hours ago, Jeanne said: It seems that celebrities carry weight if you are the Osmonds..or Thurl Bailey..how about Gladys Knight? Trust me I cringe at the idea of Osmond conversions, Glady's Knight conversions, even KevinG's nice family conversions... I would much rather all conversions and testimonies are based upon faith in Jesus Christ. That is the only place where our faith is safely placed.
Jeanne Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) 10 minutes ago, KevinG said: Trust me I cringe at the idea of Osmond conversions, Glady's Knight conversions, even KevinG's nice family conversions... I would much rather all conversions and testimonies are based upon faith in Jesus Christ. That is the only place where our faith is safely placed. Truthfully,,I am glad you feel that way, Edited December 4, 2015 by Jeanne 1
Zakuska Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 On 11/30/2015, 10:04:36, Tacenda said: True, but just posting for those that might be interested. Sometimes celebrities carry weight, just look at the way the church hones in on some of them. Or the PR department, I should say. And just as quickly thrown under the bus when they misbehave in public view.
Daniel2 Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Celebrity endorsements are often of little valve. However, Mr Jennings' background demonstrates his mental prowess and intelligence. His discussion regarding this matter demonstrated an intellectual sensitivity that I was grateful to be made aware of. Thanks for sharing it.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Celebrity endorsements are often of little valve. However, Mr Jennings' background demonstrates his mental prowess and intelligence. His discussion regarding this matter demonstrated an intellectual sensitivity that I was grateful to be made aware of. Thanks for sharing it. Some years ago, a member of Mensa, the society of people with high IQs, was tried and convicted of poisoning his neighbor to death because the man played his stereo too loud. Don't kid yourself that high intelligence necessarily equates to wisdom or good judgment. Edited to add: Here's a link, in case anyone is of a mind to CFR. I was a bit off on the details. The victim was a woman. But the point stands. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-17/news/mn-1951_1_next-door-neighbor Edited December 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Daniel2 Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Don't kid yourself that high intelligence necessarily equates to wisdom or good judgment. Strawman. I never said any such thing. Rather, I specifically complemented the intellectual sensativity of Mr. Jennings' remarks, which I recommend listening to because I believe their value is obvious to those who have ears to hear (and certainly in no way would be equitable to the obviously despicable act of poisoning one's neighbor--but thats as fine of an example as I've ever seen of attempting 'to poison the well'.)
jwhitlock Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Strawman. I never said any such thing. Rather, I specifically complemented the intellectual sensativity of Mr. Jennings' remarks, which I recommend listening to because I believe their value is obvious to those who have ears to hear (and certainly in no way would be equitable to the obviously despicable act of poisoning one's neighbor--but thats as fine of an example as I've ever seen of attempting 'to poison the well'.) Intellectual sensitivity on a Dan Savage podcast is an oxymoron if there ever was one. All Jennings did was parrot the same tired rationalizations against the church and its leaders that we've heard here. It appears that "intellectual sensitivity" is, in this case, really translated to be "he agrees with my personal position". As I noted earlier in this thread, SSM appears to be something that is going to sift the wheat from the tares in the church. The policy is part of that sifting process. The interesting (and sad) thing is that people like Jennings are self-identifying with the tares as they go public with their denunciations of the church. As an aside to this discussion, I was reading Revelation 2 today, and was struck by verses 12-16 addressed to the church at Pergamos. References to the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans are interesting to consider in the context of support of SSM within the church - for those who have ears to hear. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 12 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: Intellectual sensitivity on a Dan Savage podcast is an oxymoron if there ever was one. All Jennings did was parrot the same tired rationalizations against the church and its leaders that we've heard here. It appears that "intellectual sensitivity" is, in this case, really translated to be "he agrees with my personal position". As I noted earlier in this thread, SSM appears to be something that is going to sift the wheat from the tares in the church. The policy is part of that sifting process. The interesting (and sad) thing is that people like Jennings are self-identifying with the tares as they go public with their denunciations of the church. As an aside to this discussion, I was reading Revelation 2 today, and was struck by verses 12-16 addressed to the church at Pergamos. References to the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans are interesting to consider in the context of support of SSM within the church - for those who have ears to hear. Have to say the parallel struck me as well today, as we discussed those things in gospel doctrine class. And the high priests group meeting discussion was on Lehi's and Nephi's dream of the tree of life and the mist of darkness. In testimony meeting, I bore witness today of the divine calling and role of prophets and apostles and recalled the story told by President Gordon B. Hinckley of his youth when he and his brother would sleep out under the stars in the bed of a wagon and stare up at the North Star, observing that it never changed position, even as all the stars around it move over the course of the night. All in all, some very timely content in our Sabbath Day meeting block today. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Perhaps Jennings is amongs the wheat. Like most parables, the imagery of the wheat and the tares is archetypal. Whether one is a wheat or a tare, depends on his own behavior. And one might waver from one to the other. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Strawman. I never said any such thing. Rather, I specifically complemented the intellectual sensativity of Mr. Jennings' remarks, ... In the same breath fawning over his "mental prowess and intelligence," conveying an insinuation, if not an overt message, that because he is quick at responding to questions in a quiz show, he is somehow endowed with sage wisdom regarding matters of Mormon doctrine and policy. Quote ...which I recommend listening to because I believe their value is obvious to those who have ears to hear (and certainly in no way would be equitable to the obviously despicable act of poisoning one's neighbor--but thats as fine of an example as I've ever seen of attempting 'to poison the well'.) I wasn't comparing Jennings to a murderer or poisoning the well. On the contrary, through the device of reductio ad absurdum, citing a real-life illustration, I was endeavoring to demonstrate that a genius IQ does not necessarily make one wise. I believe a reasonable person can see this. 2
jwhitlock Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Have to say the parallel struck me as well today, as we discussed those things in gospel doctrine class. And the high priests group meeting discussion was on Lehi's and Nephi's dream of the tree of life and the mist of darkness. In testimony meeting, I bore witness today of the divine calling and role of prophets and apostles and recalled the story told by President Gordon B. Hinckley of his youth when he and his brother would sleep out under the stars in the bed of a wagon and stare up at the North Star, observing that it never changed position, even as all the stars around it move over the course of the night. All in all, some very timely content in our Sabbath Day meeting block today. Amen to that. Had the same lesson, evidently, in Gospel Doctrine. Took a little time in class to look up info on the Balaam and Nicolaitan references, which were very interesting. 1
jwhitlock Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 13 minutes ago, Teancum said: Perhaps Jennings is amongs the wheat. Doesn't appear to be the case at the moment, according to his comments. Hopefully that will change - but the choice is his.
Teancum Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Just now, jwhitlock said: Doesn't appear to be the case at the moment, according to his comments. Hopefully that will change - but the choice is his. Unless you have who are the wheat and who are the tares wrong. 2
jwhitlock Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: Unless you have who are the wheat and who are the tares wrong. Not likely. Public denunciation of the church simply isn't compatible with wheat status. 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3261558-155/op-ed-at-18-i-chose-the Quote I feel compelled to add my voice to the discussion over the policy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to baptize children who primarily reside with same-sex couples. For me, this topic is very personal. I was raised in a polygamous community, and an analogous church policy did not permit me to be baptized until I turned 18 and disavowed the practice of polygamy. Many commentators assume that the LDS policy is meant to punish the children of same-sex couples. Many also assume that the policy will exclude these children from the LDS community, and that if a child should choose to join the church, she will have to disavow their parents. I heard very similar criticisms while growing up in the polygamous community of the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB). I was taught I would have to disavow my family, leave my friends and denounce any beliefs I grew up with if I ever associated with or joined the LDS Church. At 16 years old, I started college in Cedar City, Utah. I moved in with LDS roommates who all knew of my background. At the time, I still attended a branch of the AUB. But despite this, and to my surprise, I was invited to attend LDS seminary, weekly singles activities and Sunday night firesides. I was even asked to be the president of an institute class. Never once after telling someone about my family or beliefs was I asked to denounce them. When I began meeting with LDS missionaries at age 18, I was honest about my background, and because of this I followed the standard church policy which, for me, included meeting with the mission president as well as a personal interview with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Throughout the entire process of meeting with the missionaries, not once did I feel ostracized or criticized because of my background. Even during my interview with an apostle, the only question he asked concerning my family was about my relationships with them. I answered that my relationships were fine, which they were, and he said, "Good.".... 4
california boy Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 An article on how this is all playing out in real world experiences. Twice rejected Mormon family faces painful decision about resigning. Do you think the church wants gay families to attend even if they can not fully participate or do you think they would rather they not attend? Is this gay family better off being outside the church? Or is it just better to pretend that gay families do not really exist and they are not really married anyway?
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) If he sincerely thought that he was accurately describing the situation when he said, 'I want them to look me square in the eye with all of the hatred they can muster and excommunicate me' (emphasis added), I'm confused why this man would consider the decision to be 'painful'. Edited December 7, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Calm Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Quote “We thought we’d really like to be able to raise them with some sense of religious understanding or some sense of spiritual knowledge,” I would like to know what they meant by this.
california boy Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: If he sincerely thought that he was accurately describing the situation when he said, 'I want them to look me square in the eye with all of the hatred they can muster and excommunicate me' (emphasis added), I'm confused why this man would consider the decision to be 'painful'. I am guessing that he feels like a lot of former gay members. They like the church but feel that many of the policies towards gays come not from a place of love. From the article. Quote "“Being gay and being Mormon is very much like being in an abusive relationship,” said Mayne. “If you think about it, what the First Presidency has said to LGBT people and to their children is very much in line to what the abusive spouses say to the one being abused. That sentence is, ‘I hit you because I love you.’”
Calm Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Why would an emotionally healthy person want to remain in an abusive relationship or even worse, raise their children in one? 3
california boy Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 I have no idea, but it seems to happen.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 1 hour ago, california boy said: I have no idea, but it seems to happen. But it's not logically coherent. If they truly believe Mormonism is abusive toward them and theirs, they should get away from it as far and as fast possible, and not be claiming victimhood over what a religious organization for which they have no allegiance or esteem does with its internal policies. If they won't distance themselves from an organization they view in that manner, they deserve no sympathy. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: If he sincerely thought that he was accurately describing the situation when he said, 'I want them to look me square in the eye with all of the hatred they can muster and excommunicate me' (emphasis added), I'm confused why this man would consider the decision to be 'painful'. Does seem oddly vindictive. As if to say, "I'm going to make you inflict pain on me, just so I can make you uncomfortable." 2
california boy Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But it's not logically coherent. If they truly believe Mormonism is abusive toward them and theirs, they should get away from it as far and as fast possible, and not be claiming victimhood over what a religious organization for which they have no allegiance or esteem does with its internal policies. If they won't distance themselves from an organization they view in that manner, they deserve no sympathy. Your comment certainly makes sense. I would probably give the same advise. But perhpas the couple loves the gospel more than they hate the current policies of church leaders.
Recommended Posts