Gray Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Specific counsel for that time, possibly only applying to missionaries. Probably because the dispensation was destined to be short. You could argue that applies to his warnings against homosexuality but that is why we have apostles and prophets to straighten this out for us as to what applies and what does not. They seem to be unanimous on the issue. They've certainly not been shy about sharing their opinions, just as Paul was not. Like Paul, their opinions are informed by their environment and generation.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: They've certainly not been shy about sharing their opinions, just as Paul was not. Like Paul, their opinions are informed by their environment and generation. And the revelations of God. 2
consiglieri Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And the revelations of God. CFR
Avatar4321 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 1:30 PM, thesometimesaint said: I'm not questioning that Bishop's right to do it. But the wisdom in seeking out inactive sinners for Courts of Love. Sometimes it is better to just let sleeping dragons lay sleeping. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible Is there any reason to believe he didn't seek the Lord's counsel on the matter?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: CFR https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng 2
Calm Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: Here's the thing though - we don't treat ANY divorce and remarriage as adultery. We do if there is actually adultery involved, ie they are not allowed to have a temple sealing until they have a minimum of 5 or 10 years of a civil marriage, can't remember which and they mat never get approval depending on the circumstances. I have also known of cases where the bishop pulled recommends for divorce when no adultery was involved, but instead what the bishop interpreted as unfaithfulness...wanting to dump one's spouse for selfish reasons.
carbon dioxide Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 9:03 AM, Gray said: I guess it's just a bit jarring that bishops are going around trying to get families to either divorce or leave the church. It's pretty awful stuff. There really is no substantive difference between a member who is in a gay marriage and a member that is a porn star. So would it be so wrong for a bishop to get a member to leave the porn business or leave the Church? I think a middle ground should be that if a member is inactive but is known to be involved in serious violations of Church policy they should be placed in a disfellowshipped category. The Church does not formally remove their names but distances themselves from those involved. poster removed
Ahab Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng Nice link. Thank you!
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Nice link. Thank you! 'Twas a very good talk.
Calm Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ahab said: There are many ideas of what a family is in this world but there is only one way for a family to be and remain a family forever. So there are good families, so so, not so good and bad families, eternal and not so eternal ones. I still don't see the issue of allowing those who see themselves as a type of a family be called "family". Edited February 26, 2016 by Calm 3
Calm Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: There really is no substantive difference between a member who is in a gay marriage and a member that is a porn star. There are appropriate reasons to argue for the position of the Church. Creating false comparisons between gay marriage and porn is ridiculous and will convince no one who isn't convinced already and might even cause those who are convinced to doubt, wondering why such bizarre comparisons are being made if there are decent arguments out there, so perhaps the arguments aren't so decent after all. 1
Ahab Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, Calm said: So there are good families and bad families, eternal and not so eternal ones. I still don't see the issue of allowing those who see themselves as a type of a family be called "family". I see the issue as not wanting words to become so corrupted that they can be used for anything other than what we, as individuals, think they should convey. Like how the word marriage is now used to refer to something other a man and woman in marriage. I know marriage already had other definitions when not involving people but for people it had always conveyed the idea of a man and a woman in marriage. Whereas now we sometimes have to ask if a man's spouse is a man or a woman when he says he is married. And now some people want to corrupt the idea of what is involved in being a family. Change isn't always a good thing, don't cha know.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: I see the issue as not wanting words to become so corrupted that they can be used for anything other than what we, as individuals, think they should convey. Like how the word marriage is now used to refer to something other a man and woman in marriage. I know marriage already had other definitions when not involving people but for people it had always conveyed the idea of a man and a woman in marriage. Whereas now we sometimes have to ask if a man's spouse is a man or a woman when he says he is married. And now some people want to corrupt the idea of what is involved in being a family. Change isn't always a good thing, don't cha know. According to the late Boyd K. Packer, widespread confusion about what constituted the family was a catalyst for the origin of the Family Proclamation. From FairMormon: Quote The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned. Edited February 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 5
Walden Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 12 minutes ago, Ahab said: I see the issue as not wanting words to become so corrupted that they can be used for anything other than what we, as individuals, think they should convey. Like how the word marriage is now used to refer to something other a man and woman in marriage. I know marriage already had other definitions when not involving people but for people it had always conveyed the idea of a man and a woman in marriage. Whereas now we sometimes have to ask if a man's spouse is a man or a woman when he says he is married. And now some people want to corrupt the idea of what is involved in being a family. Change isn't always a good thing, don't cha know. Yes, just like the word marriage was previously used in the LDS church to define a union between one man and multiple wives? When my great, great, great grandfather had 12 wives and was procreating with all 12 women, he likely caused some confusion himself when he referred to his "family" in the presence of those "traditionalists" back in the 1800's who considered marriage to be between one man and one woman. I can only assume that they thought that he was "corrupt(ing) the idea of what is involved in being a family," as you so eloquently state. Funny how selective the LDS mind is when it comes to defining what is "involved in being a family," when the LDS definition of family has been evolving for well over a century now.
consiglieri Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng I'm sorry. I forgot about the leaked policy that President Nelson remembered two months later was a revelation. Your point.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 12 minutes ago, Walden said: Yes, just like the word marriage was previously used in the LDS church to define a union between one man and multiple wives? When my great, great, great grandfather had 12 wives and was procreating with all 12 women, he likely caused some confusion himself when he referred to his "family" in the presence of those "traditionalists" back in the 1800's who considered marriage to be between one man and one woman. I can only assume that they thought that he was "corrupt(ing) the idea of what is involved in being a family," as you so eloquently state. Funny how selective the LDS mind is when it comes to defining what is "involved in being a family," when the LDS definition of family has been evolving for well over a century now. Even in that case a man's family was considered to be him and his wife, or wives, and any children they may have had together. With a possibly that they may have adopted some children. The idea that a man's spouse was another man would not have even been considered and it would have been totally repugnant to consider it, just as it still is for some people. 1
Ahab Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: According to the late Boyd K. Packer, widespread confusion about what constituted the family was a catalyst for the origin of the Family Proclamation. From FairMormon: Thanks for the info but I can't tell from that tidbit if others in the conference had just assumed that the families included married people or if they didn't think it was important. I'm glad our guys stated what I think should have been obvious to everybody, but somehow wasn't and in some cases still isn't.
Walden Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Just now, Ahab said: Even in that case a man's family was considered to be him and his wife, or wives, and any children they may have had together. With a possibly that they may have adopted some children. The idea that a man's spouse was another man would not have even been considered and it would have been totally repugnant to consider it, just as it still is for some people. I can bet that there were many marriage traditionalists in the 1800s who considered polygamy to be completely repugnant, and the Mormon's practice of polygamy to be blasphemous. Much like those who currently find gay marriage to be repugnant and blasphemous. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: There are appropriate reasons to argue for the position of the Church. Creating false comparisons between gay marriage and porn is ridiculous and will convince no one who isn't convinced already and might even cause those who are convinced to doubt, wondering why such bizarre comparisons are being made if there are decent arguments out there, so perhaps the arguments aren't so decent after all. One thing that gay marriage and porn have in common is BOTH are violations of the law of Chastity. So yes they are different but neither can the Church turn a blind eye to. So if I was a bishop I would have to approach them the same way. I can't say to the member that is a porn star, stop or be exed and say to those in gay marriage, its okay. To both it is repent. Edited February 27, 2016 by carbon dioxide
cdowis Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) On 2/25/2016 at 11:47 AM, rockpond said: In my years of serving in a bishopric, we've never gone after inactive members who we believed were living in such a way that a disciplinary council was needed. That's what catches my attention about this story. The church is basically using the same procedures that they use for polygamous families. The church very actively seeks out polygamists and have very strict rules regarding offspring of polygamists joining the church. This goes well beyond a matter of just morality. Edited February 27, 2016 by cdowis
Yirgacheffe Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Putting myself in the other guy's place for a moment, if I had long ago lost interest in the Church of Jesus Christ, stopped attending services and embraced a lifestyle incompatible with membership in said Church, what would I do if I were notified that a disciplinary council was being convened for me? Answer: Probably respond with a terse, if not polite, letter informing the presiding authority that he was free to go ahead with the council but that I would not be attending and that, as far as I was concerned, the church was free to drop me from the membership rolls. And that would be that. Harassment? Nah. I don't see why the church had to track these women down, contact them repeatedly and then schedule a church court.
carbon dioxide Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Just now, Yirgacheffe said: I don't see why the church had to track these women down, contact them repeatedly and then schedule a church court. I don't think the "church" is doing this. Sounds like a bishop was doing this. Perhaps other bishops would handle it differently. Given how many inactive members the Church keeps on its membership rolls who are not living according to the standards of the Church, I would leave this alone unless they came back to church. I would not assign them home or visiting teachers. The Church should just consider them as not members even though the technically still are.
Calm Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: One thing that gay marriage and porn have in common is BOTH are violations of the law of Chastity. So yes they are different but neither can the Church turn a blind eye to. So if I was a bishop I would have to approach them the same way. I can't say to the member that is a porn star, stop or be exed and say to those in gay marriage, its okay. To both it is repent. Wouldn't you as a bishop say the same thing to an embezzler? Or someone publicly preaching the Church was a fraud and trying to get members to resign? Or someone engaging in polygamy? There are many things that are sins in the Church but to say the people doing those things are essentially the same or there is no meaningful difference doesn't really make sense….even if the ecclesiastical discipline that is likely to occur is the same. I am not suggesting the bishop turn a blind eye. I am saying the comparison of porn and gay marriage in the way you did in the previous post ("no substantive difference") was ridiculous and does not help support the Church's position, but detracts from it.
Yirgacheffe Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hanging around stores? You mean the hardware store employee? That does seem a bit weird on its face. I suspect what has happened is that the hardware store employee holds the calling of ward executive secretary. As anyone familiar with a ward organization knows, it is one of the duties of the executive secretary to contact people and schedule appointments for them to meet with the bishop. Perhaps this guy saw the individual in the store and decided he would approach her then and there rather than have to make the phone call later. If that's what happened, it seems far less mysterious and sinister, don't you think? How would the hardware store employee even know her, she hadn't been to church in more than a decade. I would be furious if I was shopping and some employee started on me about a church I attended as a kid. He's at work he should be doing his job and not bothering me about a church I don't go to, telling me the church needed to talk to me. That is way way out of line. 1
Calm Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Yirgacheffe said: How would the hardware store employee even know her, she hadn't been to church in more than a decade. If it is in Utah and a few other places (haven't read the stories yet), wards are very small and ward clerks can get to know pretty much everyone in the ward by sight. My husband is a ward clerk plus takes the dog for walks around the neighbourhood frequently and stops and talks to anyone who wants to visit. I don't think his employer would be too happy about it at all. He should have just said "Hi, nice to see you" if he recognized her from previous social interaction. OTOH, when church friends did come to the store and I could help them out by suggesting toys and books they would be interested in, my employer thought that was good thing.
Recommended Posts