Scott Lloyd Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Valentinus said: I'm not the type to make physical advances. I'm just saying that if my non-violence is rewarded with violence then the other guy will be eating through a straw. The last time a guy rewarded my non-violence with violence (and this situation had nothing to do with sex or attraction), I pushed his face through his driver's side mirror. I'll gladly do it again. I will wholeheartedly agree that a violent course of action is inexcusable where a non-violent one will do. Notwithstanding ALarson's cynical regard for Elder Packer's intended meaning in that 1976 talk, I believe he would say that as well. And this is the last I intend to say on that subject in this thread, because I believe a back-and-forth on it would derail Smac's thread. Plus, it has already been discussed at length elsewhere. Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
smac97 Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 8 minutes ago, Saint Sinner said: Again, I get what you're saying. However, you have to understand that an issue like this cannot only be seen through a LDS lens. The rules you've stated above do not apply to non-LDS. But we're not talking about "non-LDS." We're talking about the LDS Church and its members. Quote All of the D&C speaks to the LDS church but not to the entire believing body of Christ. Asserting that such rules apply to non-LDS is like saying those who've never heard of Christ or the Bible are condemned. I've been speaking of the LDS Church and its members exclusively. None of this pertains to nonmembers. I agree with you. You said: "the LDS church can only excommunicate someone from its own numbers. Only Christ can excommunicate, or cut off, someone from him," and I responded to that. Quote There is only one who can condemn and He, in His divine, ultimate and unquestionable Sovereignty, will do so without the influence of His creation (the only exception being Jesus if you're a Christian). This does not seem to take into account either A) the LDS paradigm (to which I was referring) or B) Matthew 18:18. Thanks, -Smac 1
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: He was less than explicit in describing the scenario, but for reasons I have explained, my interpretation constitutes a charitable reading of what he expressed, and I stand by it. That's fine. But the fact remains that we do not know the one companion made sexual demands of the other. (And, I'm not sure how "charitable" that interpretation is either....) . Edited February 15, 2016 by ALarson
Damien the Leper Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I will wholeheartedly agree that a violent course of action is inexcusable where a non-violent one will do. Notwithstanding ALarson's cynical regard for Elder Packer's intended meaning in that 1976 talk, I believe he would say that as well. And this is the last I intend to say on that subject in this thread, because I believe a back-and-forth on it would derail Smac's thread. Plus, it has already been discussed at length elsewhere. It was fun while it lasted AND we didn't disagree like normal, Scott. I think we're getting better at this. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's fine. But the fact remains that we do not know the one companion made sexual demands of the other. . Making the assumption that Elder Packer was advocating some form of gay bullying or bashing -- and insinuating wrongdoing on his part by chattering about it in public -- is outrageous, considering Elder Packer's office, his character and his heart. Nothing in his sermons or conduct throughout his lifelong ministry is consistent with such an assumption. Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 4
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Notwithstanding ALarson's cynical regard for Elder Packer's intended meaning in that 1976 talk, I believe he would say that as well. There is nothing "cynical" about it. I just stated the facts. You can interpret the remarks how you wish and it's definitely your right to do so. But, there is nothing cynical about pointing out that we do not know what took place because those details were not shared by Pres. Packer.
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Making the assumption that Elder Packer was advocating some form of gay bullying or bashing -- and chattering about it in public -- is outrageous, considering Elder Packer's office, his character and his heart. Where did I state that's what Pres. Packer was doing? Please quote me (hint...you can't, so please don't put words in my mouth or insinuate that I have stated anywhere that Packer was "advocating some sort of gay bullying or bashing", so just calm down ). Again, I've stated the facts vs. you stating your interpretation or beliefs. . Edited February 15, 2016 by ALarson spelling correction 1
Saint Sinner Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: But we're not talking about "non-LDS." We're talking about the LDS Church and its members. I've been speaking of the LDS Church and its members exclusively. None of this pertains to nonmembers. I agree with you. You said: "the LDS church can only excommunicate someone from its own numbers. Only Christ can excommunicate, or cut off, someone from him," and I responded to that. This does not seem to take into account either A) the LDS paradigm (to which I was referring) or B) Matthew 18:18. Thanks, -Smac Apologies, Smac. It's difficult to discuss such issues when our paradigms are different. I think this best explains Matthew 18:15-20. Compare Luke 17:3. We must pursue the straying sheep (Mt 18:10-14), but certain very exceptional circumstances demand expulsion of wolves in sheep's clothing who may not wish to leave (vv. 15-20; compare 7:15-23). In this context of forgiveness to the greatest possible extent (18:21-27), however, our ultimate goal must be restoration whenever possible, even when we must expel someone from the church (compare vv. 19-20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Tim 1:20). The greatest sin of this context is being a continuing stumbling block to others (18:6-7, 15), which must include unwillingness to accept them back (vv. 28-33; compare vv. 1-14)-a sin that results in damnation (vv. 34-35). The principle would apply to many kinds of sin, but in this context such a sin, whether committed by those expelled or by those expelling others, is most probably an unrepented and continuing sin against the community or its members. Admonish the Brother or Sister Privately First (18:15) Although Jewish teachers preferred that the offender seek forgiveness first, Jewish law also emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof (as in Sipre Deut. 1.3.2), which continued until the offender repented or decisively repulsed the reprover (Moore 1971:2:153). Rabbis emphasized that reproof was to be private whenever possible (as in b. Sanhedrin 101a); a sage could thus rule that publicly shaming one's fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age (m. 'Abot 3:11). The Dead Sea Scrolls also emphasize this sequence: private reproof, then before witnesses, and finally before the gathered assembly (compare Schiffman 1983:97-98). Public admonition was reserved for the severest of circumstances (compare Gal 2:14). Witnesses Must Gather Evidence (18:16) Although we hope for reconciliation, we must gather evidence in the proper order in case we later need proof of what transpired. As community centers, synagogues doubled as local courts, a function they maintained when evaluating internal disputes in Diaspora Jewish communities (see comment on 10:17); Christians transferred the same function to churches (1 Cor 5:4-5; 6:1-5). Later Jewish teachers regularly echoed the judicial requirement of Deuteronomy 17:6-7 and 19:15; under such rules to speak evil of another without supporting witnesses warranted a public beating (Belkin 1940:267). The requirement of two witnesses remained standard judicial procedure among Christians (2 Cor 13:1-2; 1 Tim 5:19-20). The Church Must Discipline False Christians (18:17) Jesus' repeated condemnations of "hypocrisy" apply to professed disciples, not just to the religious establishment of his day (24:51). If all else fails, the Christian community must publicly dissociate itself from a habitually sinning professed Christian: neither outsiders nor the sinner should continue under the delusion that this person is truly saved. Thus one should treat such a person as a tax gatherer (9:9; 21:32) or a Gentile (5:47; 6:7; 20:25)-unclean and to be avoided. Although lesser forms of discipline existed (as in 1QS 6.25 vs. 5.16-17; 2 Thess 3:6), this discipline was full excommunication, implying spiritual death (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20; *** 3:10-11). Professing Christians never repudiated by the church have perpetrated many evils throughout history, bringing shame to the body of Christ. In Such Cases the Church Acts on God's Authority (18:18) God authorizes the Christian judicial assembly that follows these procedures to act on the authority of heaven. The unrepentant person has already left God's way and cannot be restored without repentance. The verb tenses allow (though do not demand) the meaning the context suggests: the earthly action follows the heavenly decree (compare Mantey 1973). By removing an unrepentant sinner from the Christian community, believers merely ratify the heavenly court's decree (see Keener 1991a:141-43; in Jewish courts, compare t. Rossashana 1:18), removing branches already dead on the vine (compare Jn 15:2, 6). Bind and loose refer to the judicial authority of gathered Christians to decide cases on the basis of God's law. Most scholars thus recognize that this passage applies to church discipline (Cullmann 1953:204-5; R. Fuller 1971:141). The more popular use of "binding" today in many circles (exercising authority over the devil) resembles instead an ancient practice in the magical papyri-also called "binding" (see note on 12:29)-of manipulating demons to carry out a magician's will. (The Bible does support Christians' authority to cast out real demons-compare comment on 17:17-but the only "devils" in this passage are fully human ones, and they are being cast out of the church!) Witnesses Are to Pray, Not Act Vindictively (18:19) Given the context, the two or three gathered for prayer in verses 19-20 must be the two or three witnesses of 18:16. Whereas in Deuteronomy 17:6-7 the two or three witnesses were to be the first to cast stones, here they are to be the first to pray. While this could refer to the negative prayer of execration (which may have been more of a curse-compare 1 Cor 5:5), in this context of forgiveness the prayer may represent a prayer for ultimate restoration (though compare 1 Jn 5:16). Jewish excommunication even in its long-term form was normally reversible if repentance took place (p. Mo`ed Qatan 3:1, 11; though compare the extreme cases in 1QS 7.1-2, 16-17, 24-25). Jesus Himself Is the Presence of God (18:20) An ancient Jewish saying promised God's presence for even two or three gathered to study his law (m. 'Abot 3:2, 6; Mek. Bahodesh11.48ff.; compare m. Berakot 7:3). Here Jesus himself fills the role of the Shekinah, God's presence, in the traditional Jewish saying (compare Smith 1951:152-53; Meier 1980:206; Barth 1963:135; Ziesler 1984). Jewish teachers often called God "the Place," that is, "the Omnipresent One" (see Keener 1991a:150 n. 27); Jesus is "God with us" (Mt 1:23; 28:20).
Popular Post cinepro Posted February 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 15, 2016 14 hours ago, sjdawg said: What would you consider sufficient evidence that a suicide was related to the Church's Moral principles (to use your words)? A note explicitly stating the suicide was a direct result of the Church? A suicide on the steps of the Church? I'm just curious. I'm not sure it is ever as simply as saying that a suicide is solely due to the LDS Church teachings but I do believe that the teachings can cause a lot of internal conflict in a struggling persons psyche. You mean like this...? Memorial held for gay Mormon who committed suicide in Los Altos Coincidentally, this is the church building I attended growing up. I don't think it's too hard to understand. If talking about the LDS Church is too sensitive, then just imagine any other Church. You've got a friend who is a devoted Scientologist/ Jehovah's Witness / Catholic (pick one). He believes in the teachings of his Church and tries to follow Church leaders, but has had homosexual attractions for as long as he can remember. He is told by his Church that were he to act on such actions, it would be a perversion or depravity, and that he must live a life of total celibacy in order to stay right in the eyes of God (or successfully manage his Body Thetans and rise on the tone scale.) Finally, after years of struggle and feelings of unworthiness, he commits suicide because he just can't bear to go on. A year later, a leader from high in the hierarchy of his Church is visiting nearby, and there is a public Q&A. If you were to attend and ask that leader to acknowledge the role their teachings may have played in your friend's suicide, why would the be repulsive or polemical? Were I in that situation, I would no doubt be harboring significant resentments against my friend's Church, and would want to know if they were sorry for the effect their teachings had. Ultimately, this is a situation that LDS Church leaders will have to deal with (being blamed for Gay LDS Suicides). It's up to them how they want to deal with it. I would suggest they start by reading the infantile whining in the OP and doing the opposite. 5
smac97 Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, Saint Sinner said: Apologies, Smac. It's difficult to discuss such issues when our paradigms are different. I think this best explains Matthew 18:15-20. Thank you for this information. It is helpful to understand where you are coming from. I was not speaking ecumenically. I am not particularly well-versed in, and hence would not presume to speak much about or critique, how disciplinary proceedings are handled in other faith traditions. My comments pertained to the LDS Church only. I think that within that paradigm, the Church's policies are consistent with scripture and appropriate. Thanks, -Smac 2
Popular Post provoman Posted February 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 15, 2016 I have known about Henry Stuart Matis for many years now. But reading his story has brought me to tears in a public place. It has only been a few years since the Church openly took a stance on how members should engage in dialogue with those with whom we disagree. I think what members need to do is stop trying to create what I will term "levels of sin"; that is, promiting without authority that one sin is "not as bad" as another sin. I think that if we treated sin as sin, temptation as temptation, we would all have compassion for each other. As we would realize we are all sinners or that we all experience temptation. I think that with this mindset that all have fallen short, that we can develope a greater appreciation and need for the atonement; individually and collectively. A very difficult part Mr. Matis story is how faithfull he was (I believe he was buried in his Temple clothing). 6
Russell C McGregor Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 5 hours ago, Valentinus said: I'm not the type to make physical advances. I'm just saying that if my non-violence is rewarded with violence then the other guy will be eating through a straw. The last time a guy rewarded my non-violence with violence (and this situation had nothing to do with sex or attraction), I pushed his face through his driver's side mirror. I'll gladly do it again. See that missionary name tag? That's the warning. Hands off. Season is closed. Look elsewhere. 2
Glenn101 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 19 hours ago, cinepro said: Ultimately, this is a situation that LDS Church leaders will have to deal with (being blamed for Gay LDS Suicides). It's up to them how they want to deal with it. I would suggest they start by reading the infantile whining in the OP and doing the opposite. So, what is cinepro's solution? Glenn
cinepro Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 5 hours ago, Glenn101 said: So, what is cinepro's solution? Glenn I would just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 21 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: See that missionary name tag? That's the warning. Hands off. Season is closed. Look elsewhere. Who's disputing that, Russell? Was your response simply a reason be argumentative? On what are you and I disagreeing? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 31 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Who's disputing that, Russell? Was your response simply a reason be argumentative? On what are you and I disagreeing? If you agree that missionaries are out of bounds, then it appears we're not disagreeing about anything.
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: If you agree that missionaries are out of bounds, then it appears we're not disagreeing about anything. I completely agree. The only line I've ever crossed with missionaries was doing cocktail molotovs in the desert with missionaries on their p-day. The MPs wife was soooo mad at me. Lol. Edited February 16, 2016 by Valentinus 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 23 minutes ago, Valentinus said: I completely agree. The only line I've ever crossed with missionaries was doing cocktail molotovs in the desert with missionaries on their p-day. The MPs wife was soooo mad at me. Lol. Does that mean "Molotov cocktails," as in home-made petroleum grenades? And I thought our missionaries were bad for going spotlighting! 1
Damien the Leper Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Does that mean "Molotov cocktails," as in home-made petroleum grenades? And I thought our missionaries were bad for going spotlighting! No. I'm not that good at chemistry. We used bottles of Bacardi 151 and lighter fluid. Gotta keep those boys entertained.
halconero Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 20 hours ago, Valentinus said: I completely agree. The only line I've ever crossed with missionaries was doing cocktail molotovs in the desert with missionaries on their p-day. The MPs wife was soooo mad at me. Lol. I remember hearing about this in Arizona...
Tacenda Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Wonderful fireside, and wish the whole membership of the church would/could listen to this!! https://player.fm/series/mormon-history-guy/podcast-15-of-one-heart-and-one-mind-fireside On March 8, Russell Stevenson, along with Blacks in the Scriptures and Northstar, sponsored a special event devoted to discussing how the LGBT/SSA/transgender and African-American communities have endeavored to uphold their faith in the face of systemic marginalization. Participants included Nick Gregory, an active transgender Latter-day Saint, Rod Olson, an active gay Mormon living in Los Angeles, and Marvin Perkins, an African-American Latter-day Saint man and producer of Blacks in the Scriptures. You will also hear stunning musical performances from Catherine Papworth, Rashida Jordan, and Cherie Call. Edited February 17, 2016 by Tacenda
Damien the Leper Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 8 hours ago, halconero said: I remember hearing about this in Arizona... I've heard it brought up by missionaries that didn't know it was me.
Recommended Posts