rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: We've already spent too much time talking about individuals. I'm not inclined to share with you much in the way of my personal views on things which are deeply personal and sacred to me. Let's leave it at that and move on. -Smac I guess that makes sense because as I've shared my personal views here on things which are deeply personal and sacred to me, they've been ridiculed by people who question my faith.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: Let's not do such computations. I don't want this thread to be about the personal life and decisions of RockPond. Let's discuss the subject at hand. Still love ya, Scott! -Smac In consideration of your request and desire (and, I would add, the heart-wrenching difficulty that rockpond is going through now), I have removed my post (as well as I am able with this buggy new software). You may remove your quotation of my post if you would like. Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Mystery Meat Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: I guess that makes sense because as I've shared my personal views here on things which are deeply personal and sacred to me, they've been ridiculed by people who question my faith. Which is an understandable reaction (even if not entirely justified) when you have questioned the righteous authority of men we sustain as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Not to mention your downright contempt for them that has been growing for quite some time. Edited January 12, 2016 by Mystery Meat
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: I apparently missed a reply from you... I don't know how to keep up with this thread and don't know how to tell the new software to notify me when (and only when) someone has replied to (quoted) me. With all due respect, you have no idea what acting wisely or unwisely looks like for me. And to suggest that I haven't been humble or softened my heart after what I've gone through over the last decade is offensive. I wonder how some here would feel if they were in my shoes (not that my shoes are unique but clearly I'm in the minority). I spent over eight hours faithfully serving in my calling on Sunday. Renewed two recommends, interviewed on youth, extended a calling, set apart six people. All wonderfully spiritual and uplifting experiences. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, just explaining that I was feeling quite edified by the Spirit and while cleaning up dinner talked to my wife about something (unrelated to this) that I felt prompted to pray about this week, asking her to join me in prayer, before taking it to the Bishop to counsel with him. Then after putting my kids to bed, I had my heart ripped out while listening to President Nelson and his wife (who's damaging message has been overshadowed). I have no control over what direction the Spirit has given me to live by. And it hasn't been easy, it's required a lot of humility. Sometimes, apparently, more than I can muster. I'm going to try to reduce my involvement in this thread. Far too many messages for me to keep up. If you reply and want a response from me, please consider sending me a PM. I stand by my post, but out of consideration for the trial you are going through, I will back off for now.
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: We were warned: There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” -Harold B. Lee Some of us think Mormonism (or indeed any religious tradition) should place more value on conscience than unquestioning obedience to church leaders. Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray 2
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 11 hours ago, Danzo said: Sorry, but it does In the temple as well as other places. "no sexual relations except legally and lawfully married" The "legally and Lawfully" refers to gods law, not the Oregon Revised Statutes. Legally and lawfully are synonyms. You're reaching.
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 11 hours ago, Calm said: I suspect that the "legally" applies to man's law and "lawfully" applies to God's. Why would it need to be repeated if the words meant the same thing? And it has to be both at this time. The scriptures are full of unnecessary redundancy. Legally and lawfully mean the same thing. The word you're looking for is "righteously", not lawfully.
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 13 hours 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? I have a testimony that they are God's prophets on the earth. If the Lord reveals to them that it's time for us to walk around with our pants on our heads, then it's time. I don't believe it is my place to draw lines for the Lord to remain within.Either they are God's prophets or they are not. I would expect the same experience confirming to me that they're not as I got confirming to me that they are. Why wouldn't I?
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: We were warned: There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” -Harold B. Lee Gah!!! I hate being in a different time zone. My rep points don't replenish until you guys wake up and i'm ready to go to sleep!!!!
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Zakuska said: The law of Chastity states that "you will have no sexual relationships with any one but your legaly an lawfully wedded spouse." The Law of the land says Gays can marry... so the Law of Chasity does not count Gay couples who are married by definition. Sorry. To be completely accurate it is 'they will have no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded'' A subtle difference, but when you say 'spouse' it makes it just that little bit easier to ignore the whole pesky gender thing in the definition of marriage as contained in the scriptures. Edited January 12, 2016 by busybee 1
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 12 hours ago, Zakuska said: Lets suppose that a gay parent follows their obligations per the D&C and teaches their child they need to be baptized at age 8 but the church doesn't let them. If that child dies between the age of 8 and 18 who's fault is it that that child did not get baptized even though they where taught and wanted to? That would be the churches fault and the Lord will hold the leaders accountable for that. I'm sure glad I'm not in their position. Their parents fault for not being willing to follow up their teachings by living them. If you really think that God will be placing blame in this situation. Because we all know that the LDS position is that if you don't get baptized in this life you've had it. No hope for you.
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 12 hours ago, consiglieri said: Your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wed. There. Fixed it for you.
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 12 hours ago, Zakuska said: According to the laws of the Land Gay couples are Legally and Lawefully Married. For it to be "in the Temple" as you pretended it would need to say... "Legally and Lawefully Sealed". Or are you under the false impresion that we perform "seculare weddings" in our temples? Of course marriages performed in the temple have a secular component. They are both secular and religious in nature. If they didn't have a secular component they would not be recognised by the government. In many places temple marriages are not recognised by the government. Here in the UK couples need to be married civilly before they can be sealed in the temple. The church has to apply for temple marriages to be recognised by the relevant government, it's not just automatically recognised..
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Zakuska said: So you disagree with the Lord then... Romans 9 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." God raised Pharoah to proclaim his Might and Name to the nations. So we can use Old Testament scriptures some times. Just not to prove that God finds homosexuality an abomination?? Got it! Edited January 12, 2016 by busybee
Meadowchik Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) It's disheartening seeing the friction that surrounds this policy. I sincerely believe, and believed this before the policy was announced, that part of the reason God allows the dissonance existing like with GLBT persons is because God wants us to learn how to break out of tribalism. The policy being right gives no excuse for members to hurt or ostracize others. The law of chastity that does not allow space for same-sex relationships is not a reason to kick out GLBT from our homes or midst. Everyone is a child of God, we're supposed to love everyone, not just those who "sign on" to the deal. By the same token, not being allowed to "sign on" to the deal of a group is not an excuse to reject its individuals, either. IMO tribalism accounts for a great deal of struggle with this policy and the church's stance on gay relationships, whether a struggle for those who support the policy or a struggle for those who oppose it. we stumble when we make love contingent on tribe membership and/or when one expects tribe membership as a representation of love. Edited January 12, 2016 by Meadowchik 3
busybee Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) . Edited January 12, 2016 by busybee
CV75 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 10 hours ago, Teancum said: See stem....your own spiritual confirmations are invalid if they don't line up with the leadership or those who agree with them. Your answer is the flawed one. If the Spirit has borne witness to someone of the truthfulness of the Book or Mormon, the prophecies concerning the Restored Church contained therein are also true, including the structure the Lord put in place to define the relationship between His servants and His people. In the Book of Mormon we have a covenant with the Lord to “give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants…” (3 Nephi 12:1) He set these servants apart to “go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.” (3 Nephi 11: 41).
CV75 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I'm not being coy. The question I am asking is HOW President Monson received " the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord." What method did God use to direct his prophet? Step 1 shows the GA's asking. Step 2 shows Pres. Monson declaring God's answer. Somewhere in between 1 & 2 God had to communicate in some manner or method with President Monson. And as you so clearly pointed out, God can communicate in many ways - spoken word, visitation, dreams, visions, and even feelings. But I stand by my belief that of all the methods of revelation in all of the gospel, feelings are the most subject to interference from the receiver. And feelings seem to be all we get these days. If God SPOKE to President Monson as he spoke to earlier prophets (which is always my hope) I would like to know exactly what was said. If President Monson asked about "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" and just felt like a specific course was right, I believe it could be from God and he could be inspired, but more personal interpretation of feelings as God's will could easily have happened. As President Nelson described, "The [three-member] First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively," he said. "And then, we watch the Lord move upon the president of the church to proclaim the Lord's will." http://www.sltrib.com/home/3391057-155/lds-gay-policy-came-from-god The description is that those assembled "watch Lord move upon the president of the church to proclaim the Lord's will." he speaks of understanding as well as feeling, and he referred to the feelings as spiritual ("Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."). He is rightly speaking in behalf of the group. Exactly what was said? How do you explain the validity of 3 Nephi 19:33-34 and similar verses, except to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon? 1
rongo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I rejoice in the solidifying of the Church's position against gay marriage and female priesthood ordination in recent months. I think these actions have made it much more difficult for future Church leaders to "undo" them in a manner similar to OD1 and OD2. Doing so would be much more problematic for active, believing, rank-and-file members. I look at it as similar to burning the ships on the shore to make it clear that there's no going back. I think the heartbreak of those who have hoped that the Church would de-classify homosexuality as a sin (or at least allow it within civil gay marriage), allow female priesthood ordination, etc., is comparable to what *I* would be feeling if the Church had fulfilled *their* wishes. That should give all of us some sympathy and empathy for those who feel like their heart was ripped out by the Church's "digging in" on these issues.
JLHPROF Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, busybee said: To be completely accurate it is 'they will have no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded'' A subtle difference, but when you say 'spouse' it makes it just that little bit easier to ignore the whole pesky gender thing in the definition of marriage as contained in the scriptures. Should have left it how it started - Men were told they "will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood." Women were told they "will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex save your lawful husband, given you by the holy priesthood." This was done separately by gender and specified priesthood necessity, and left no room in that format for homosexual claims to sneak in. 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 14 hours ago, smac97 said: Baptism is not being denied. It is being delayed. There are many circumstances where the Church has required someone wanting to join the Church to delay doing so. Thanks, -Sac Baptism delayed is baptism denied. 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Danzo said: Sometimes I think that this guy never was LDS. LDS doctrine is clear, everyone will have the opportunity to be baptized. This policy won't change that. So it's okay to treat people unjustly in this life because God will make it all better in the hereafter? This is the basis of millions of mischiefs.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: Legally and lawfully are synonyms. You're reaching. No. You are reaching. You really think whether you are obeying the law of chastity depends on what legal jurisdiction you are in? Can you give me any citation for that? 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Danzo said: Going off topic is evidence one is losing the argument. Or too much brilliance to be confined to one narrow thread.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So it's okay to treat people unjustly in this life because God will make it all better in the hereafter? This is the basis of millions of mischiefs. You are changing your argument. Glad to know you are conceding that the church is not denying baptism to anyone. Now we can talk about whether there is any injustice is requiring minors to wait until they are ready. Edited January 12, 2016 by Danzo
Recommended Posts