Crossing a line

[Okrahomer]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

On the general subject of "crossing the line," one of the most important elements in a spiritual journey is crossing the line from the known into the unknown.

This is why it is such an important scene in the Lord of the Rings when Frodo for the first time steps foot outside the Shire.

The fictional Frodo's burden of faith became heavier as he continued to "cross that line" through the entire journey by resisting--not always successfully--the urge to accept the power and protection of the tangible ring.  By choosing to follow living Prophets, the Latter-day Saints are also resisting all the power and protection the tangible "world" has to offer

You have crossed the line.  

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

The fictional Frodo's burden of faith became heavier as he continued to "cross that line" through the entire journey by resisting--not always successfully--the urge to accept the power and protection of the tangible ring.  By choosing to follow living Prophets, the Latter-day Saints are also resisting all the power and protection the tangible "world" has to offer.

Wrong.

By "staying in the boat," modern Mormons are "staying in the Shire" and will never become anything more than Sackville Bagginses.

Poster thread banned.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Wrong.

By "staying in the boat," modern Mormons are "staying in the Shire" and will never become anything more than Sackville Bagginses.

 

No offense consig. but you don't get to declare that for other people.  

Literary symbolism is open to interpretation.   It's not something with a right or wrong answer.  It can't be used to win theological arguments. 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What is rational about not trusting an all knowing and good Father in Heaven?

And how can our Father help us grow if He can't ask more from us than we are initially willing to give?

Well the question is whether God is doing or saying the things those who claim he speaks to them is doing.  When someone says God says this, that or some other thing it is good the use rational thought and reason to decide whether God would do or say such a thing?  I am sure you would agree that people who think God is telling them to fly planes into buildings are likely not really getting a message from God.  But they may really think they are trusting in God is well. See the problem?

I have no idea how your second sentence applies to what I said.

[Okrahomer]

20 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

The fictional Frodo's burden of faith became heavier as he continued to "cross that line" through the entire journey by resisting--not always successfully--the urge to accept the power and protection of the tangible ring.  By choosing to follow living Prophets, the Latter-day Saints are also resisting all the power and protection the tangible "world" has to offer

You have crossed the line.  

Yikes!!!  Sorry about that.  Not quite sure how I did, but I apologize and will re-read the rules.

I'm guessing the rule I violated here was this one?  "• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole"

Again, I apologize for that.
 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Okrahomer
To add the rule I think I violated

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/13/2016 at 7:29 AM, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of grouping together the three most abused stories in the standard works.

Nephi killing defenseless Laban, Abraham commanded to kill his defenseless son, and Peter not leaving Jesus after the body and blood sermon in John's Gospel, instead asking where else he could go to seek the words of life.

All of these are powerful and dramatic stories, but must be used with care.

The reason they must be used with care is because they can be used to justify any behavior by any religion, no matter how reprehensible.

Just because these stories are in the scriptures does not give carte blanche for Church leaders to do or say anything they want.

Nor does it bind members of the Church to accept whatever Church leaders do or say, regardless of what the individual conscience attests and the Holy Ghost testifies.

But since there is nothing even remotely "reprehensible" in the recent policy changes (except in the minds of the proudly depraved) your argument is moot.

The recent changes don't cross any line in any direction.

They disappoint the self-manufactured expectations of those who fondly imagine the Church is about to surrender to the wickedness in which they delight.

That's not "reprehensible."

Sorry.

We welcome proudly depraved posters. You are thread banned.

 

 

[california boy]

On January 13, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Calm said:

My opinion is the conflict was always there, just that some were attempting to ignore it.  I don't see the policy as changing much, just making what was there explicit?  Previous to the policy, the Church doctrine was that same sex relationships (sexual) were sins.  That is the current doctrine.  The children would be taught the same thing about their parents' relationship.  The only difference is that this rejection of church doctrine is now officially labeled an apostasy.  While there is some church doctrine that outright rejection and violation of does not, imo, fall into apostasy, I personally felt this was significant enough to merit it, mostly be ause I saw it as similar to plural marriage but having the additional burden of behaviour that was not acceptable in any context at its core.

I get that some were okay with bringing their children up in the Church as long as the conflict wasn't front and center, but I don't understand why they would be unless they saw the Church as a cultural resource and not a faith one (in the sense it is what it claims to be).  If they weren't put off by the teachings that same sex relationships are sinful and the marraige is invalid in the eyes of God and the Church prior to the labeling of this position as apostasy, I really don't see why they would be put off just because a label was attached to a position that was always present.

If it is the lack of baptism for their children, it makes me wonder how they see baptism and I believe that it is most likely they do not see baptism in the same way as the Church sees it and therefore should not participate in it.  I am willing to change my mind in individual cases, but have not seen any yet, even among those claiming they were okay with their kids being baptized (because certain aspects of what that meant weren't dealt with imo).

I am not sure I explained this clearly, sorry if so.

Well I can give you my view.  I think that a lot of people want to have their children have a religious background.  The church is one of the better ones.  You don't have to agree with all of the church's positions to see the goodness in it.  How may Catholics have a problem with many of the teachings of their church.  They still stay and attend.  And they still raise their children in their religion, even though those children see their parents "sinning" against Catholic beliefs.  I actually think it is quite common to disagree with many church teachings.  My partner's protestant church thought that dancing and movies were sinful.  While his parents stayed away from dancing and movies, they allowed their children to go.   Is this any different?  Should they have stayed away from their church?  Some parents think it is perfectly ok for their children to decide for themselves what teachings are from God and what teachings are from man, no matter what the teaching.

 

Gay people have long ago stopped worrying about what others think of them.  You can call them any name you want including apostate.  Frankly, they are used to it.  Why would it bother them.  They know that in their heart, God loves them.  And in their soul, they feel the spirit of God.  And in their heart they know their relationship is not evil.  It is the church leaders that has decided that putting labels on them and deciding their relationship is sinful, not God.  Many members have the same views on gay marriage but stay. Why would it be difficult for a gay couple.  

[Calm]

Quote

Why would it be difficult for a gay couple.

Because the Church is teaching their children that their family should not exist, not just that their parents should repent of some sin which repentance would likely strengthen the bonds of the family rather than removing them.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Because the Church is teaching their children that their family should not exist, not just that their parents should repent of some sin which repentance would likely strengthen the bonds of the family rather than removing them.

Maybe you didn't completely grasp what I was saying.  There are a lot of gay couples that really don't care what the church thinks of their marriage or relationship or what they teach their children about their relationship.  And while the church might want that marriage to end in divorce, I doubt that gay couples would do that just because that is what the church wants.  It may very well have little to do with the decision to allow or even encourage the gay couple's children to participate in the church.  Re read if you are unclear why I make that statement.  Certainly Daniel could care less how the church views his marriage or what the church teaches about it.  That doesn't mean he doesn't want his children to be involved in the church.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

There are a lot of gay couples that really don't care what the church thinks of their marriage or relationship or what they teach their children about their relationship.  And while the church might want that marriage to end in divorce, I doubt that gay couples would do that just because that is what the church wants.  It may very well have little to do with the decision to allow or even encourage the gay couple's children to participate in the church.  

If someone is comfortable enough to send their children to a church that teaches (in their opinion) that falsehood that their marriage is invalid and their family is not one that will be together in eternity unlike the families surrounding their children and this couple believes their children will be strong enough to able to encounter such teachings without emotional or spiritual harm or conflict occuring in the family, then do such individuals think their children will somehow suffer from not being baptized in that church?  If so, why?

I am not trying to be argumentative, I am trying to understand.

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Calm

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone is comfortable enough to send their children to a church that teaches (in their opinion) that falsehood that their marriage is invalid and their family is not one that will be together in eternity unlike the families surrounding their children and this couple believes their children will be strong enough to able to encounter such teachings without emotional or spiritual harm or conflict occuring in the family, then do such individuals think their children will somehow suffer from not being baptized in that church?  If so, why?

 

I think it is petty that the church would not allow a child to be baptized, but it wouldn't bother me.  That is kinda the churches problem.  It is doing what it thinks is best.  I just see things differently.  It is not the only thing the church does or has done in the past that I disagree with.  That doesn't mean that the church is not a good place or teaches good values.  It can be wrong about some things, but right about most things.  I haven't voiced an objection to the new policy.  It really doesn't affect me.  Nor would I let it.  I encourage my own chldren to be active in the church.  But they are all older and all baptized.  

[busybee]

On 13/01/2016 at 4:43 PM, CA Steve said:

Hi BD,

 

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. I do have a question.

For those who consider that the current direction of leadership is wrong regarding gay people, gay marriage and the children of gay members, while at the same time still believing that Mormonism offers eternal rewards not found anywhere else on earth, do you think that the bar in question might actually be higher for them? For those people it appears that the consequences of what leadership is doing isn't the loss of an earthly life, but one of eternal salvation.

 

For example I have a niece who lives in the north east and is in a gay marriage who, even though she is in such a marriage, had hopes of raising children within the church. I think she looked so fondly upon her own upbringing that even though there are some very direct conflicts with her lifestyle she wanted the same childhood for her own children. Now any such children would have to wait until they were 18 to make that choice, a choice that will have long been made for them due to a complete lack of any positive LDS influence. In a case like this, can't such a person believe that eternal risks are at hand?

Why would there be a 'complete lack of positive LDS influence'?

If she has the desire to 'raise her child within the church' she still has that option. The child will just have to delay baptism until they are 18. They will still be able to attend all meetings and activities and so would be exposed to as much positive influence LDS as any other LDS child would be. Of course there would be a lack of positive example in the home (in regards to the Law of Chastity as defined by the Lord etc), and that, IMO, would be far more influential in the child deciding to decline baptism at age 18 if, in the unlikely circumstance that they were still involved in church activity by that age.

Baptism at age 8 is no guarantee that a child will remain within the fold.

[busybee]

On 14/01/2016 at 2:00 AM, Teancum said:

God needs to be consistent and follow his own rules.  If not such a being should not be followed.  But really the problem is not so much God but the ones who claim God is speaking through them.  

How do you get to tell God what he should do?

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, busybee said:

How do you get to tell God what he should do?

How do you get to tell me or anyone what you think God says is what we should do?

 

Also I believe what God does and asks us to do should be as moral as God expects us to be.  So if someone says God says to do this or that I try to judge or by the best morals that we have is scripture.  But when scripture contradicts those good things I question it.  One reason there is a lot in the OT I question was really from God. Same with some of what modern religion and their leaders say and do.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Teancum

[busybee]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you get to tell me or anyone what you think God says is what we should do?

I didn't. You were the one stating that God needs to be consistent.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, busybee said:

I didn't. You were the one stating that God needs to be consistent.

See my edit.  But yea you sort of do.  See if I don't beleive what you beleive then I am telling God what to do.  Accordingly you are telling me I should beleive what you think God says is what God says.

[CA Steve]

delete

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, busybee said:

Why would there be a 'complete lack of positive LDS influence'?

If she has the desire to 'raise her child within the church' she still has that option. The child will just have to delay baptism until they are 18. They will still be able to attend all meetings and activities and so would be exposed to as much positive influence LDS as any other LDS child would be. Of course there would be a lack of positive example in the home (in regards to the Law of Chastity as defined by the Lord etc), and that, IMO, would be far more influential in the child deciding to decline baptism at age 18 if, in the unlikely circumstance that they were still involved in church activity by that age.

Baptism at age 8 is no guarantee that a child will remain within the fold.

In the case of my  niece, she lives on the East coast. She thinks this new policy has made an already uncomfortable situation unbearable and that attendance at church with her spouse and and future children would be unthinkable. Since she is on the East coast she is also far away from any of her own faithful family members and does not live in an area where there are many LDS families. In effect the new policy has eliminated the few options she thought she had for exposing her future children to Mormonism.

I do find quite a bit of contradiction in the argument that this policy is necessary to avoid conflict within a home of a gay married family while at the same time not seeing how that same conflict will occur at church. Why is it members defending this policy think there is merit to avoiding conflict at home while at the same time believing gay people "still have the option" to attend church where the very same conflicts will occur? Either this kind of conflict should be avoided both at home and church or it shouldn't.