The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 14 minutes ago, Gray said: Terrestrial Monopoly will be your personal incentive to go for exaltation, then. Maybe the gods play a hyper-realistic version of D&D? Nerds are probably more likely to be exalted than jocks. I doubt the ratio will be that different between the two groups.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 2 hours ago, busybeesaid: I don't know where people get the impression that the church is a democracy. Either Pres. Thomas S. Monson is God's propheton the earth or he isn't. We don't get to vote on what the Lord instructs His prophets to do. We get to sustain them or not. Our 'vote' will not change what the Lord directs His prophets to do. I don't think common consent means what you think it does. My comment didn't mean what you apparently think it does. I didn't establish the principle of Common Consent. The Lord did.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Their authority would not go away if no one listened to the Apostles. You have a very secular notion of what we mean by authority. When Jesus was largely rejected did they mean his authority had slipped away. See Section 121.
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Just as the Americans betrayed Benedict Arnold after his defection. I was thinking more of somebody on a cross, but whatever.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you think that nothing has changed in what the Brethren have been teaching than you have either not read enough or not read far enough back. Just this year, supporting rights for LGBT persons was a huge departure from the Brethren's previous position. Many of us saw the Church coming to an ever greater understanding of homosexuality over the past couple decades as old documents were removed from circulation (To The One, To Young Men Only) and new statements were published via MormonsandGays.org and other publications. Nothing has changed. You are imagining things. Old documents are always being removed from circulation. New once are being produced to better reflect the conditions today. Homosexual Activity has always been treated as a sin in the church. If you think this is not the case, please provide references from past leaders condoning homosexual behavior. 1
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: See Section 121. So you are saying that the prophets are seeking the honors of men, to cover their sins, and exercise unrighteous dominion? Okay, but I think it is more likely you fall under the wo to those who accuse others of sin when they have not sinned. 3
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Then go ahead and toss away and burn the scriptures because they all disagree with you. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: Is there any line that the Brethren could cross that would make you "check out"? Or does it not matter, you'll sustain them regardless? No line was crossed, that is your problem. Nothing happened nothing changed, That is your whole complaint. how can you cross a line, when nothing happened. 1
Danzo Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. . . . if she weighs less than a duck 2
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I was thinking more of somebody on a cross, but whatever. Most awesome challenge in sci-fI literature to an alien race: "We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our god to a stick! Don't **** with the human race!"
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 May I add my humble voice to the discussion in asking that people refrain from personal insults and focus on the topic at hand? Or would that be considered "board nannying"?
rockpond Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Just now, Danzo said: Nothing has changed. You are imagining things. Old documents are always being removed from circulation. New once are being produced to better reflect the conditions today. Homosexual Activity has always been treated as a sin in the church. If you think this is not the case, please provide references from past leaders condoning homosexual behavior. No, I am not imagining things. As I've mentioned here before, when I was serving as a YM president, I had a gay young man in the Priests quorum. I took the time to research everything I could find from the Church on homosexuality going back to the 1960's to see what I could piece together. Our teachings have certainly developed/changed/evolved over the years. There is a lot out there if you care to actually study it. You can start here: http://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/ and here: http://www.connellodonovan.com/lgbtmormons.html 2
rockpond Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: No line was crossed, that is your problem. Nothing happened nothing changed, That is your whole complaint. how can you cross a line, when nothing happened. We can't have a true dialogue if you are unwilling to answer fair questions. I'll ask again: Is there any line that the Brethren could cross that would make you "check out"? Or does it not matter, you'll sustain them regardless? Perhaps the answer is too uncomfortable for you.
smac97 Posted January 11, 2016 Author Posted January 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: . . . if she weighs less than a duck Or less than very small rocks. -Smac 1
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Most awesome challenge in sci-fI literature to an alien race: "We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our god to a stick! Don't **** with the human race!" Great quote! Where is it from? Reminds me of, "Don't **** with the babysitter!"
Russell C McGregor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Some of them were hanging by a thread..and still members of the church. Really? Were they members in fact, or in name only? And did they stay in the Church to receive the words of eternal life, or to "change it from within," in the manner of subversives? 28 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I wonder if shelves would have fallen as hard had the church said this is a revelation...and not start with policy Why do you suppose you are dealing with exclusive categories? Is that because you don't understand how the Church of Jesus Christ works? 28 minutes ago, Jeanne said: and would they even know had it not been outed out. What does that mean, exactly? Was there ever any expectation that the policy would not become public knowledge? 28 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Publicity stunt?? This is kind of like kettle calling the pot black. Yesterday's revelation was over a month overdue. And the plot thickens. Your pots and kettles malapropism is amusing, but I fail to see its relevance. "Overdue?" What makes disaffected fringies so amazingly important that they think they can demand explanations on their timetable, or set arbitrary cut-off dates after which any new information gets to be treated as spurious? Edited January 11, 2016 by Russell C McGregor 1
smac97 Posted January 11, 2016 Author Posted January 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: We can't have a true dialogue if you are unwilling to answer fair questions. I'll ask again: Is there any line that the Brethren could cross that would make you "check out"? Or does it not matter, you'll sustain them regardless? Perhaps the answer is too uncomfortable for you. For me there is a line. The nature and location of that line, however, I shall not share with those who are demonstrably hostile to my faith. Thanks, -Smac 1
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said: Really? Were they members in fact, or in name only? And did they stay in the Church to receive the words of eternal life, or to "change it from within," in the manner of subversives? Why do you suppose you are dealing with exclusive categories? Is that because you don't understand how the Church of Jesus Christ works? What does that mean, exactly? Was there ever any expectation that the policy would not become public knowledge? Your pots and kettles malapropism is amusing, but I fail to see its relevance. "Overdue?" What makes disaffected fringies so amazingly important that they think they can demand explanations on their timetable, or set arbitrary cut-off dates by which any new information gets to be treated as spurious? I just remembered why I was missing Russell so much.
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: For me there is a line. The nature and location of that line, however, I shall not share with those who are demonstrably hostile to my faith. Thanks, -Smac If it hasn't been crossed by now, I'm not sure it matters much.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you think that nothing has changed in what the Brethren have been teaching than you have either not read enough or not read far enough back. Just this year, supporting rights for LGBT persons was a huge departure from the Brethren's previous position. Many of us saw the Church coming to an ever greater understanding of homosexuality over the past couple decades as old documents were removed from circulation (To The One, To Young Men Only) and new statements were published via MormonsandGays.org and other publications. Unfortunately, you seem to have read more into those things than what was there. You were not betrayed by the Church or by the brethren, but by your own expectations. Has it occurred to you that when you imagined the Church rising to your level of superior enlightenment, you were seeing what you wanted to see? 3
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Great quote! Where is it from? Reminds me of, "Don't **** with the babysitter!" Oops, I thought it was from a book I read but that was another not quite as awesome quote. No one is entirely sure where that one came from. Much like my sig quote.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: We can't have a true dialogue if you are unwilling to answer fair questions. I'll ask again: Is there any line that the Brethren could cross that would make you "check out"? Or does it not matter, you'll sustain them regardless? Perhaps the answer is too uncomfortable for you. But your question was not fair, It takes no mental effort to always suspect the worst in someone, especially if you have no evidence for it. Sorry no hypotheticals, Not playing that game with you. Deal with what happened . . . which was Nothing Anyone can conjure up hypotheticals (what if they ate children?, what if they support Donald Trump?, or other horrors) I sustain them when they act in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The law of chastity is one of the most fundamental laws of the church, If you have ever been to the temple, you would know that we LDS hold it to be highly sacred. The actions of the prophet were entirely consistent with this. Edited January 11, 2016 by Danzo
smac97 Posted January 11, 2016 Author Posted January 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: If it hasn't been crossed by now, I'm not sure it matters much. Yes. After we turned in the Jews living in our attic to the Nazis, it was all downhill from there. We descending into melodramatic twaddle now. -Smac 1
rockpond Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: For me there is a line. The nature and location of that line, however, I shall not share with those who are demonstrably hostile to my faith. Thanks, -Smac Makes sense. Identifying that line would open you up, make this a real and sincere dialogue. It might actually bring us to common ground. Edited January 11, 2016 by rockpond
Danzo Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Makes sense. Identifying that line would open you up, make this a real and sincere dialogue. My suggestion to you, if you want a real and sincere dialogue is to talk to your bishop, stake president, family, home teachers and those who know you, love you and respect you. The very fact that you seem to be trying to resolve these issues with anonymous internet poster that have never met you make me doubt your sincerity. -From an anonymous internet poster
Recommended Posts