Gray Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Why does the Church need to thrive in the larger ecosystem of ideas. What more would you want to change to insure it's vitality? It doesn't need to try to access the mainstream. The church has never been mainstream. But right now it exists in a balance between mainstream and the far extreme fringes of religion. It's found a moderate niche similar to JW or 7th Day Adventists, albeit smaller than either of those. What you don't want to see happen is for the church to stop evolving and slide into ever smaller niches where only people on the fringes of society would have interest in the church. The church has always been conservative, evolving at a pace slower than society, but still evolving. If it stops evolving then it runs the risk of ending up in the weeds. Edited March 7, 2016 by Gray
consiglieri Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Redefining marriage is not that far removed from defining it out of existence altogether. Who is my neighbor?
Guest Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Nothing can ever suffice for the "progressives" because they believe in continuing to change society, and as a result, the Church as well. True indeed, but no matter the sin, the sinful have always wanted every Church to change, instead of the sinful changing. We, more and more, feel it a tradgey to hurt the feelings of any group, no matter their position. In fact (it would seem now) the unpardonable sin is not longer to sin against the Holy Ghost, but rather to call anything or behavior a sin.
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, cinepro said: CFR that anyone "here" has hoped for a woman with same-sex attraction to be called as Prophet, or predicted that the Church will be destroyed if such does not come to pass. It's simple logic, and many here fervently champion the components: 1. Women must be ordained to the Priesthood. No CFR needed. 2. The Church must embrace ssm and disavow the recent declarations about ssa. No CFR needed. 3. Changing similar prejudiced and unjust doctrines and practices have precedents in our history. Since these were forced on the Church by societal and governmental pressures, the Church will acquiesce in these also. No CFR needed. The inevitable conclusion: Once women are ordained and ssm is embraced, there would be no reasonable impediment to the ordination of a female Apostle and eventually, following the existing line of succession, a President. Some say there is no scriptural gender requirement for Priesthood offices. No CFR needed. Edited March 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui 2
Popular Post USU78 Posted March 7, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 7, 2016 21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Once the current ssm and ordination errors are corrected, what are the next mistakes of men that need to be fixed in order to perfect the Church? There is no end to the histrionic demands of the narcissists ... nor any possibility of being left in peace. 6
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The question was not posed to me, but I would think it would be jettisoning the concept of marriage -- and the family unit -- altogether. Can you think of a cleaner, quicker way for Satan to sabotage Heavenly Father's plan? And once you redefine marriage (as has already happened) you are not too far away from defining it out of existence. IMO, that chicken has flown the coop. The mop-up operations are well under way to clean out what remains of that institution. How about the concept of eternal gender? Will that need to go? And with that, the titles and roles of Father and Son? Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: There is no end to the histrionic demands of the narcissists ... nor any possibility of being left in peace. What demands remain?
USU78 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: What demands remain? "We need to do more!" It doesn't matter. It simply has to be more. And that's because it isn't about the allegedly demanded change ... it is about the narcissists' desire to dominate. 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: After the possible ordination of women and the acceptance of SSM as valid? Heaven only knows - I think the setting in order will happen first. I don't think the progressives will get the chance. And I don't think these things will be allowed to come to pass. The temples would be desecrated by allowing such things to occur within their walls, and the Lord will not be mocked. Maybe the end won't come that soon? Many historical temples were desecrated. Why should we be spared?
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 18 minutes ago, Gray said: It doesn't need to try to access the mainstream. The church has never been mainstream. But right now it exists in a balance between mainstream and the far extreme fringes of religion. It's found a moderate niche similar to JW or 7th Day Adventists, albeit smaller than either of those. What you don't want to see happen is for the church to stop evolving and slide into ever smaller niches where only people on the fringes of society would have interest in the church. The church has always been conservative, evolving at a pace slower than society, but still evolving. If it stops evolving then it runs the risk of ending up in the weeds. In what ways does it still need to evolve?
CA Steve Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) The 2016 version. 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns of the Sexual Revolution. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by sustaining a ssm woman as its President. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? The 1970s version. Quote Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns of racial equality. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by sustaining a black man as its President. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? And the turn of the last century version Quote Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns against polygamy. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by issuing a declaration that it will no longer practice polygamy. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? Edited March 7, 2016 by CA Steve 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 28 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know, today we have many in the Church who suppose that a woman who is sexually attracted to other women, a real circumstance in this world, should not lead. Things tend to change over time, and as luck would have it, those changes come about because of the pressure put on the Church by society. For instance, gay people are not so stridently fought against today as it used to be. The language is softer and is clearly an attempt to be more inclusive. Some would say that is a good thing, a step in the right direction. We're also, as luck would have it, a far cry from where we were a few decades ago in terms of women having an official and heard voice in the Church. it was only in the 80s I believe, wherein a woman was allowed to speak in General Conference, for instance. And it was but a year or two ago when a woman was asked to pray in GC. And to think the past couple of years the Church is trying hard to push for a more established woman's voice in local affairs. These are steps that clearly don't revolve all of our problems. The problems will persist. Women will still be considered less by many in local leadership. It's just how it is. But, hopefully in years to come that will go away, more and more. Sometimes outside pressure on the Church works out for the benefit for us all. We need to embrace goodness and truth no matter it's source. What goodness do we need to embrace that we are not now embracing? Will acceptance of ssm and ordination of women be enough to satisfy the needs of progress?
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe the end won't come that soon? Many historical temples were desecrated. Why should we be spared? Last dispensation. Desecrated temples by definition must be destroyed. If ALL authorized temples are desecrated the ordinances would be lost from the earth. 3
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Who is my neighbor? Who is my husband and who is my father?
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 21 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: True indeed, but no matter the sin, the sinful have always wanted every Church to change, instead of the sinful changing. We, more and more, feel it a tradgey to hurt the feelings of any group, no matter their position. In fact (it would seem now) the unpardonable sin is not longer to sin against the Holy Ghost, but rather to call anything or behavior a sin. What are the next sins the Church should call good?
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, CA Steve said: The 2016 version. The 1970s version. And the turn of the last century version You will note that I have already stipulated those things. So, once the present errors are corrected, what remains? Or will that suffice? Will the Church then be fully acceptable? Edited March 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: So, once the present errors are corrected, what remains? Or will that suffice? With all this Socratic questioning, Bernard, you're going to make some of the "progressives" here mad, sooner or later. Not necessarily a bad thing. Just remember that I predicted it. 2
Bernard Gui Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: With all this Socratic questioning, Bernard, you're going to make some of the "progressives" here mad, sooner or later. Not necessarily a bad thing. Just remember that I predicted it. It's the question I have for all progressives... what does your perfection look like? I fear no kimchee. Edited March 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I fear no kimchee. I admire your courage. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: IMO, that chicken has flown the coop. The mop-up operations are well under way to clean out what remains of that institution. How about the concept of eternal gender? Will that need to go? And with that, the titles and roles of Father and Sin? Father and Sin? 1
CA Steve Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: You will note that I have already stipulated those things. So, once the present errors are corrected, what remains? Or will that suffice? Will the Church then be fully acceptable? The Church will be fully acceptable when prophetic revelation is no longer needed, until then maybe we all might realize that our own version of what the church should be is just that.
Russell C McGregor Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: As long as the church is run by imperfect mortals there will always be obstacles because those mortals will always make mistakes. Repentance is not a one time even but a state of being. Just as individuals should always be repenting of errors, so should any institution that is imperfect. You mean -- like the world? The Church is so fortunate in that, even though its leaders are imperfect and fallible, its critics are perfect and infallible. 2
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Last dispensation. Desecrated temples by definition must be destroyed. If ALL authorized temples are desecrated the ordinances would be lost from the earth. I'm not sure we will be spared that indignity.
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Father and Sin? Dadgum kimchee! Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, CA Steve said: The Church will be fully acceptable when prophetic revelation is no longer needed, until then maybe we all might realize that our own version of what the church should be is just that. What about our version still needs to be changed before it is acceptable?
Recommended Posts