hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: There's only one problem with your wishful thinking, and it is this: the only reason to repent is when we do something wrong. The Church has done nothing wrong. But I see this as a potential learning opportunity. Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the ark-steadiers repented of their opposition to this policy? If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was right, and then reversed course completely. How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking the leaders for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do sustain them and they aren't wrong, and that we accept their leadership. The trendy-lefties could still invite gay people to sit with them in Church, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity. I hope that I will be humble enough to accept God's will if I am wrong, that I can see the error of my ways and repent and improve. Thats what this life is all about. No infallible humans on earth to my knowledge, including the brethren.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Just now, hope_for_things said: I hope that I will be humble enough to accept God's will if I am wrong, that I can see the error of my ways and repent and improve. Thats what this life is all about. No infallible humans on earth to my knowledge, including the brethren. And their critics.
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Back to the topic... I think both sides in the "exclusion" debate make fair points. On one hand, if you use a dictionary definition as some have, then yes the Church is to one extent or another "excluding" the children of gay couples. I will concede and grant that. However, comparisons to other organizations or associations fall flat on their face. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unlike such other organizations, is the Lord's Kingdom and Church here upon the Earth, or at the very least we claim that it is such. The Lord has historically excluded whole countries, peoples and races before, one only need to read the Bible to see that this is so, including men, women and even children. So arguing that the Church is wrong to exclude anyone is not enough for me to believe they have done something wrong here. There will be many people who will be excluded from the Telestial Kingdom, even more from the Terrestrial Kingdom, and yet even more from the Celestial Kingdom. It is a sad situation all around, but the Church is not to blame for this. This is the doing of the proponents of gay marriage who have tried to confuse the issue in the minds of susceptible Church members by convincing them or causing them to doubt that the Lord's standard and doctrine on the Law of Chastity can change. Expect to see more policies that are like this one in the future.
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what your religious background is, but apparently you reject the LDS belief that God speaks to mortal men and women through His authorized servants. I can't do much about that, other than disagree. I'm LDS, have been all my life. I agree that God speaks to men and women throughout history and today. I just don't see any evidence that this communication is done in clear and unmistakable ways. If God speaks to mortals, and I believe he does, then how does that process work, is it clear and unmistakable? No, there isn't any evidence of that, and I'm not aware of present or past church leaders who proclaim such clear communication. Do church leaders get things 100% wrong some times, make mistakes, errors in doctrine? Yes, we have a multitude of evidence throughout scripture and latter day Mormon history to show that. Why are you so confident then, that this policy accurately represents God's will and mind? Can you eliminate the possibility of it being erroneous?
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Back to the topic... I think both sides in the "exclusion" debate make fair points. On one hand, if you use a dictionary definition as some have, then yes the Church is to one extent or another "excluding" the children of gay couples. I will concede and grant that. However, comparisons to other organizations or associations fall flat on their face. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unlike such other organizations, is the Lord's Kingdom and Church here upon the Earth, or at the very least we claim that it is such. The Lord has historically excluded whole countries, peoples and races before, one only need to read the Bible to see that this is so, including men, women and even children. So arguing that the Church is wrong to exclude anyone is not enough for me to believe they have done something wrong here. There will be many people who will be excluded from the Telestial Kingdom, even more from the Terrestrial Kingdom, and yet even more from the Celestial Kingdom. It is a sad situation all around, but the Church is not to blame for this. This is the doing of the proponents of gay marriage who have tried to confuse the issue in the minds of susceptible Church members by convincing them or causing them to doubt that the Lord's standard and doctrine on the Law of Chastity can change. Expect to see more policies that are like this one in the future. The reason its wrong in our dispensation is because of the Scripture. We are to teach and baptize everyone, no exclusions, by the Lords own command. What happens when we do geneological work in the future and find a gay family. Are we going to exclude them in the afterlife as well? Who do we seal the children too in that situation? Its more than just excluding them from the church right now. There are eternal ramifications to this as well that must be considered. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: There is nothing firm about those answers. Implications that things like shunning should be avoided are often overridden by the overwhelming message of LGBT are apostate, which will likely lead to their excommunication, which is a form of shunning. You can't tell LGBT they are welcome to worship with you while simultaneously telling them that they are apostates and will be disciplined...oh, and that their children can't receive any saving ordinances, a name and blessing, priesthood etc. That would be like me inviting you to my home but telling you you're not allowed to eat the same food as others and you may only sit on the floor while others sit on the furniture. Oh, and by the way, I'll likely ask you to leave early because I don't want you associating with other guests as an equal. Yep. That's really welcoming. The common sense of your thoughts are obvious. Others may be able to see it if they did not feel that they have to go to the matt for anything and everything the LDS Church leadership says or does. Yet they will claim they do not believe LDS Leaders are infallible. Well then act like it! 2
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 13 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The claim that the November 13 letter "revised" the policy is anti-Mormon propaganda, and is false. The letter clarified the policy by explaining its original intent and scope. Put another way: the claim that the original intent and scope of the policy was anything other than that set out in the November 13 letter is nefarious, calumnious, and false. Can you prove your assertion that the clarification was the original intent of the policy? No way to prove it that I know of. I can't think of any evidence to support your claim other than the fact that the FP letter was called a "clarification". Elder Christofferson's interview didn't allude to what the letter stated, and this would have been the perfect opportunity to clarify. I believe an objective outside observer could conclude that the church modified the policy between the original rollout and the FP letter. 1
rongo Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 5 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The reason its wrong in our dispensation is because of the Scripture. We are to teach and baptize everyone, no exclusions, by the Lords own command. Surely you recognize that "everyone," as you say above, doesn't include unrepentant sinners. Teach and welcome and invite everyone, yes, but by definition, not everyone can receive ordinances. Not until they comply with the gospel.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 6 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The reason its wrong in our dispensation is because of the Scripture. We are to teach and baptize everyone, no exclusions, by the Lords own command. What happens when we do geneological work in the future and find a gay family. Are we going to exclude them in the afterlife as well? Who do seal the children too? What, you think the Lord commanded us to teach and baptize everyone unconditionally, regardless of whether they have any intention of obeying the commandments? Where does it say that? What is the second of the first principles of the Gospel, Zak?
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what your religious background is, but apparently you reject the LDS belief that God speaks to mortal men and women through His authorized servants. I can't do much about that, other than disagree. Yet they are not infallible but your approach is that you act like they are.
rongo Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 7 minutes ago, Zakuska said: What happens when we do geneological work in the future and find a gay family. Are we going to exclude them in the afterlife as well? Who do seal the children too? Surely you're not suggesting that we seal children to their gay-married parents? That is one of the main reasons why this is such an important thing to take a stand on, and to remain firm even with opposition (including from within the Church). Gay marriage has serious ramifications with eternal sealing, precisely because it can't be done. It doctrinally can't be done. 3
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 54 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: If you feel comfortable comparing the Lord's anointed to the groups of people the Lord himself criticized most, more power to you. Well if the shoe fits......
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rongo said: Surely you're not suggesting that we seal children to their gay-married parents? That is one of the main reasons why this is such an important thing to take a stand on, and to remain firm even with opposition (including from within the Church). Gay marriage has serious ramifications with eternal sealing, precisely because it can't be done. It doctrinally can't be done. Why don't we leave the Judging to God? Let him sort it out. Nothing is impossible with him. Maybe the more femenine or masculine in a gay-SSM will be ressurected as the opposite sex. Isn't God able to do ANYTHING? Can he not make a barren true grow fruit? Wheres your faith? Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Can you prove your assertion that the clarification was the original intent of the policy? No way to prove it that I know of. I can't think of any evidence to support your claim other than the fact that the FP letter was called a "clarification". Elder Christofferson's interview didn't allude to what the letter stated, and this would have been the perfect opportunity to clarify. I believe an objective outside observer could conclude that the church modified the policy between the original rollout and the FP letter. I can provide proof that that was the original intent. However, such proof does not work over the internet.
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 13 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The reason its wrong in our dispensation is because of the Scripture. We are to teach and baptize everyone, no exclusions, by the Lords own command. What happens when we do geneological work in the future and find a gay family. Are we going to exclude them in the afterlife as well? Who do seal the children too in that situation? Its more than just excluding them from the church right now. There are eternal ramifications to this. Now you are starting to see why SSM is so evil. There are indeed eternal ramifications.
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 22 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: And their critics. And since when have the critics claimed infallibility?
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 5 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yet they are not infallible but your approach is that you act like they are. That is not the case. I have yet to see anyone argue anything similar to, "This can't be wrong because the brethren said so." I reject the harping and carping about this policy because it is unconvincing at every level. Sure the apostles are fallible. And while they may occasionally be wrong, it is my observation that their critics are never right.
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well if the shoe fits...... It doesn't.
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said: That is not the case. I have yet to see anyone argue anything similar to, "This can't be wrong because the brethren said so." I reject the harping and carping about this policy because it is unconvincing at every level. Sure the apostles are fallible. And while they may occasionally be wrong, it is my observation that their critics are never right. So all the critics who helped bring about the down fall of the Priesthood ban where "never right"?
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 7 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Why don't we leave the Judging to God? Nothing is impossible with him. Maybe the more femenine or masculine in a gay-SSM will be ressurected as the opposite sex. Isn't God able to do ANYTHING? Can he not make a barren true grow fruit? Wheres your faith? This is not true. Lot's of things are impossible for God. Lying is one example. Changing is another. So too is joining two individuals of the same sex in an eternal relationship. All three of these things would violate eternal law and violations of eternal law are impossible for God.
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, Zakuska said: So all the critics who helped bring about the down fall of the Priesthood ban where "never right"? No.
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said: This is not true. Lot's of things are impossible for God. Lying is one example. Changing is another. So too is joining two individuals of the same sex in an eternal relationship. All three of these things would violate eternal law and violations of eternal law are impossible for God. Yet he told Moses to Lie... As he did with Abraham. .. not once but three times. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: That is not the case. I have yet to see anyone argue anything similar to, "This can't be wrong because the brethren said so." I reject the harping and carping about this policy because it is unconvincing at every level. Sure the apostles are fallible. And while they may occasionally be wrong, it is my observation that their critics are never right. Russell Just read Scott's constant comments about the apostles and prophets of the LDS Church and always falling in line with what they say. My comment was posted in response to his. Even in this thread he purports that this (awful) policy may be revelation. Well if it is revelation own up to it and don't promote it as a mealy mouthed policy buried in some manual. I may not buy into all Joseph Smith did and said and taught these days but the man was not afraid to declare what he said was from God.
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) If a Gay couple had a family and 100 years from now the Millenium hits and we have to do temple work for these people. What is the church going to do? Are we going to have to change doctrine and reinstitute Adoption Sealings? If a Lesbian couple went to the sperm bank and had a family. By definition those children would be bastards. Dueteronomy says bastards can't Join. Paul and the NT Church says they can. As well as those who have injured stones. Gay couple. Nothing is impossible for God. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 35 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: And their critics. Self reflection, critical thinking and attempts at objectivity are key. Assuming someone is always correct, this is an assumption that many members grant to the brethren, is folly in my opinion. Why do that when there is so much evidence of past error, and the acknowledgement of fallible humans that are a part of this process. Makes no sense to me. 1
Recommended Posts