Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 23 minutes ago, consiglieri said: To me it is a mass of confusion. For people who are easily confused
Tacenda Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I know Pres. Monson isn't doing well health wise, but what about mentally. I'm not saying he was unable to get a revelation about this, but it would have been nice to hear it from his lips. 1
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 29 minutes ago, Gray said: I don't believe God works like that. But even going by an orthodox Mormon paradigm, I feel what you would call the spirit regarding the rightness of committed, monogomous gay marriage. And I feel only darkness and confusion regarding the policies enacted by the Q15 on this issue. That should be enough of a confirmation for any orthodox Mormon. What I have come to find as I have changed my approach to spirituality is that I still feel spiritual confirmation of whatever I feel to be right. So I can't regard that as a discrete, literal message from God, because the kinds of things that are confirmed have changed over the years as my beliefs have changed. In the church we tend to use the spirit as a kind of divining rod for finding truth. While it's a valuable feeling that shouldn't be ignored, I don't think it works like that at all. I feel the spirit more regularly now than I ever did. I believe that is because I am acting in harmony with what I feel deep down to be true, whereas before I was trying to make orthodoxy work when I felt uneasy about many of the precepts of orthodoxy. In fact, I feel the spirit strongly as I write this. You may feel the opposite as you read it, because you don't feel that my approach is right. I do not think that is the Spirit at all. The Spirit is often jarring, throwing our ideas and mores for a loop. 2
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 51 minutes ago, Gray said: I didn't say anything about that. All I said was that legal and lawful mean the same thing. Good, I thought you implying that the law of chastity was controlled by secular law, which would be absurd. Nice to know we are in agreement.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: When did mocking the handicapped become acceptable? Since I found myself without a conscience.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Danzo said: For people who are easily confused Pot, meet kettle.
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I do not think that is the Spirit at all. The Spirit is often jarring, throwing our ideas and mores for a loop. What we teach investigators and kids in seminary is that feelings of peace/transcendence are an affirmative answer from the spirit that the subject in question is right/true. Feelings of darkness/confusion is confirmation that the subject in question is wrong/false. Maybe I've mistakenly thought that was the spirit my whole life. In which case, the only conclusion would be the spirit is not a reliable guide, if it's so hard to get it right. But no one would question the nature of my spiritual experiences if my conclusions matched their own. Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray 1
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Gray said: What we teach investigators and kids in seminary is that feelings of peace/transcendence are an affirmative answer from the spirit that the subject in question is right/true. Feelings of darkness/confusion is confirmation that the subject in question is wrong/false. Maybe I've mistakenly thought that was the spirit my whole life. In which case, the only conclusion would be the spirit is not a reliable guide, if it's so hard to get it right. But no one would question the nature of my spiritual experiences if my conclusions matched their own. The Spirit is only reliable when you are trying to serve God. I may be an exception then. I roll my eyes a lot at people whose spiritual experiences agree in principle with mine. Might be genetic. My dad is also dubious of a lot of member's experiences that seem self-serving or ego-stroking.
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The Spirit is only reliable when you are trying to serve God. I may be an exception then. I roll my eyes a lot at people whose spiritual experiences agree in principle with mine. Might be genetic. My dad is also dubious of a lot of member's experiences that seem self-serving or ego-stroking. I'm trying to be a kinder, better person who is more in harmony with God.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm trying to be a kinder, better person who is more in harmony with God. Tell God to tell you when you are wrong. And then brace yourself. 5
Sleeper Cell Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: And you have yet to respond to my question. Should we not be at least somewhat cautious of a purported revelation allegedly received by a man who may have dementia? No. I give no weight to gossip and rumors. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: The scriptures are full of unnecessary redundancy. Legally and lawfully mean the same thing. The word you're looking for is "righteously", not lawfully. Whatever might be your opinion about the redundancy of this phrase, it doesn't originate with the scriptures. (I don't think the phrase is even in the scriptures). It is standard legal jargon. See here, for example. It probably has some arcane but legally necessary significance. It is like "know of your own knowledge" in that respect. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: A much abused New Testament story. 2 hours ago, rongo said: How so abused? He means he doesn't like it when others use it to counter his bloviations. 3
rongo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 52 minutes ago, rockpond said: I need to ask about your second sentence above... it reads (to me) as if you think that OD1 and OD2 were negative things. But, I doubt that is what you meant. I believe that both were the will of God. Literally. But, I also believe that prophecy is conditional, and I reject absolute omniscience. As we use agency and make choices (individually and collectively), God reveals things to His prophets --- but He won't usually interfere with the exercise of our agency (although He sometimes does) and He usually gives us (individually and collectively) a lot of rope to hang ourselves with before intervening. Which is a long way of saying that I believe that there were multiple possible "branching offs" that can happen (choose-your-own-adventure-book-style), and God reacts to that. In other words, I don't believe that OD1 and OD2 absolutely had to happen, but when things developed to that point, then they became the will of God at that time. Wouldn't future official declarations from the Prophet and Apostles be good things? Or are you just saying that unraveling current Church positions on gay marriage and female ordination would be challenging to accept? (Which, again, I'd be able to understand.) I think that taking a hard line now and decades later, undoing it via OD3 would be a bad thing in a materially different way than OD1 and OD2 were --- because of the fundamental doctrines of the Restoration about our premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Plural marriage and priesthood restrictions are a completely different order of things, doctrinally, than sanctioning homosexuality, and I think that that would be something the Church couldn't recover from like it has from any fallout from OD1 and OD2. Please remember that when you say "active, believing, rank & file members" that describes most of us here... and we represent a large, disparate array of thoughts & convictions on various matters. That's why I chose those labels --- as an acknowledgment that there are active and believing members who fundamentally disagree with the Brethren on the issue of homosexuality. This issue is "different" from other issues in a lot of ways, and the Church is facing losing good members over this issue. I've made it clear that I side squarely with the Church on this issue, and don't think that the Church should try to keep people with irreconcilable dissonance at any cost, but I still mourn their loss and wish they could find a way to align their views with the Church's And one more point: You have framed my position and that of many others as hoping the Church would "de-classify homosexuality as a sin" . . . You might consider that [this is] not [an] accurate description of where I stand. I apologize if I misrepresented your views. Would you mind clarifying for me exactly what your view is concerning homosexuality, the Church, and gay marriage? I was careful not to say that you think it's not a sin, but my understanding is that you believe that the Church could sanction homosexuality within civil gay marriage --- and possibly sanction gay sealings --- without violating doctrine. Please correct whatever is incorrect about this! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: To me it is a mass of confusion. Oblique but sacrilegious mockery.
rongo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: He means he doesn't like it when others use it to counter his bloviations. I know ---- I wonder what "proper" uses consiglieri would allow for using Jesus asking those abandoning Him "Will ye also go away?" When could this be used in a church setting where he wouldn't consider it (or Abraham's test) an "abuse?" Answer: when it's not being used to encourage and foster belief in the CoJCoLDS. As you said. Edited January 12, 2016 by rongo
Sleeper Cell Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: You're right, Spencer. Discrimination against one group is always a good reason to discriminate against another. And you have yet to respond to Smac’ s question. Do Zak and Consig likewise object to the Church’s added conditions placed on children from polygamous families? [/quote]
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Tell God to tell you when you are wrong. And then brace yourself. I assume I'm always wrong about something. But I don't think God "tells" people things. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I'm probably wrong about other things, and right about that. Or vice versa. Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Whatever might be your opinion about the redundancy of this phrase, it doesn't originate with the scriptures. (I don't think the phrase is even in the scriptures). It is standard legal jargon. See here, for example. It probably has some arcane but legally necessary significance. It is like "know of your own knowledge" in that respect. Good points, thanks
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: The scriptures are full of unnecessary redundancy. Legally and lawfully mean the same thing. The word you're looking for is "righteously", not lawfully. A few thoughts: 1. The phrase "legally and lawfully" is not from the scriptures. It is of more recent derivation. So I don't think we can say that redundancies in scripture necessarily lead us to conclude that "legally and lawfully" are also redundant. 2. In years past The LDS Church, along with the rest of society, spoke of marriage, including lawful marriage, with "heterosexual" as an implied term. Same-sex marriage did not really exist in any meaningful sense until the last few years. 3. Due to changes in social constructs, The LDS Church has refined and clarified the meaning and ambit of The Law of Chastity: "His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife." 4. Given the foregoing definition, arguments about "legally and lawfully" as pertaining to same-sex couples are moot. 5. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue, here is an interesting explanation on the meaning of "legal" as compared to the meaning of "lawful": Quote Lawful Licit; legally warranted or authorized. The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act isauthorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In thissense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid orillegal, but could not be described as unlawful. The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules,whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym ofconstructive, while lawful is not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legalis also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances,however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. So no, "legal" and "lawful" are not synonymous. Thanks, -Smac 4
Avatar4321 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 43 minutes ago, Gray said: I assume I'm always wrong about something. But I don't think God "tells" people things. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I'm probably wrong about other things, and right about that. Or vice versa. I can tell you that God does indeed tell us things 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 19 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? That question deals in hypotheticals. But no such line has been approached or even crossed here. The brethren have affirmed a long-standing position. A righteous long-standing position. That crosses no line. But if anyone was staying in the Church on the premise that they were going to be part of making it over into a social club with no moral standards of any description, I can understand that they would see the recent policy changes as somehow retrograde. But they are not. 3
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Just now, Russell C McGregor said: That question deals in hypotheticals. But no such line has been approached or even crossed here. The brethren have affirmed a long-standing position. A righteous long-standing position. That crosses no line. But if anyone was staying in the Church on the premise that they were going to be part of making it over into a social club with no moral standards of any description, I can understand that they would see the recent policy changes as somehow retrograde. But they are not. This is why I'm not particularly interested in discussing such "lines." Not only are they generally hypothetical, they are pretty much exclusively so. Folks online like to come up with "Sophie's Choice"-type scenarios. And folks who are specifically hostile to the Church like to try to jam Mormons into a corner and fess up to either A) "following the Brethren" by committing some atrocity, or B) refusing to follow the Brethren, which the critic then uses as leverage to encourage more generalized disagreement with and refusal to sustain/follow the Brethren. The hyperbole being thrown around demonstrates the prevalence of emotion and the lack of reason underlying much of the opposition to the Church's changes to the CHI. One poster in this thread characterized the Church's position as "horrific." As in "causing horror." As in causing "an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear." Let us pause for a moment and dwell on how utterly unserious and unreasonable it is to use such a word to describe the LDS Church's policy, one which - as you have noted - is based on a long-standing and righteous position. The Church is not ordering its members to beat up apostates, or to kidnap children, or to burn crosses, or to do anything which even remotely approaches being "horrific." Instead, the LDS Church is responding to changes in society which have necessitated clarification as to the scope, meaning and application of the Church's doctrines pertaining to marriage and sexuality. To be honest, although I am generally willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, I have a hard time doing so when I came across such absurd, overwrought-to-the-point-of-bad-faith allegations against my faith such as those we have seen in this thread. Thanks, -Smac 3
Gray Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 39 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: I can tell you that God does indeed tell us things I don't think that's true. We discover truths in the course of the spiritual quest. God doesn't give the answers, though. Of course if you think God does that, how would you ever separate the voice of God from the background noise in your brain?
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oblique but sacrilegious mockery. He means he doesn't like it when others use it to counter his bloviations.
Recommended Posts