consiglieri Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Of course, it must be recognized that consiglieri, consistent with his own declaration, approaches these discussions from the standpoint that he has more spirituality than all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve combined, so it stands to reason that he is going to be upset whenever anyone appears to express loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ in a manner that contradicts his opinions, even if that person sincerely believes that the Church and its leaders are aligned with the will of God. I am to the Mormon Church as Socrates was to the men of Athens.
pogi Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK, gotta say the part in bold in particular exemplifies the chip-on-the-shoulder mentality I'm seeing on this thread. If anyone here has said your opinion renders you ineligible to "attend [church in good] standing," I haven't seen it. It really does come across that you can't feel your opinion is validated unless and until you can talk others into agreeing with you. I don't need you to agree with me to feel validated. Some validation would be nice though. What can I say, I'm human! The word "attend" was in reference to a gay wedding - not church. What I meant is that I can attend a gay wedding without fear of revocation of my temple recommend or be in fear of disciplinary action. That I can do so with a clean conscience before God and man. Why would I feel the need to say such a thing? Because I get the very strong impression that my decision to attend a hypothetical gay wedding is highly suspect. I have been accused of naively condoning the behavior, I have been called cowardly, etc. Someone said that they personally would not attend because they don't want to put their "own salvation at risk," or that to attend would be in "violation of their moral code", etc. I just want to make it clear that I am not in fear of my salvation, I would never put my salvation at risk over such a matter, and that I have a very strong and working moral code. That is why I felt the desire to proclaim my clean conscience, and would appreciate some validation for it. Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I don't need you to agree with me to feel validated. Some validation would be nice though. What can I say, I'm human! It's like you can't feel validated unless you are able to skewer in a debate someone who disagrees with you. And that mentality seems to pervade the thread, which apparently was originated to push the point that, if invited to a same-sex wedding, one ought to attend regardless of whether one approves of same-sex marraige. Quote The word "attend" was in reference to a gay wedding - not church. What I meant is that I can attend a gay wedding without fear of revocation of my temple recommend or be in fear of disciplinary action. That I can do so with a clean conscience before God and man. Again, I don't see where anyone here has disputed that. It strikes me as a straw man. Quote Why would I feel the need to say such a thing? Because I get the very strong impression that my decision to attend a hypothetical gay wedding is highly suspect. I have been accused of naively condoning the behavior, I have been called cowardly, etc. Someone said that they personally would not attend because they don't want to put their "own salvation at risk," or that to attend would be in "violation of their moral code", etc. I'm not going to try to revisit 12 pages of posts, but as I recall, those things were by way of push-back from those who were being pursued and required to justify their opinions. Again, the thread was initiated by one who apparently has a problem with those who would hold such an opinion. Quote I just want to make it clear that I am not in fear of my salvation, I would never put my salvation at risk over such a matter, and that I have a very strong and working moral code. That is why I felt the desire to proclaim my clean conscience, ... Noted. Quote ... and would appreciate some validation for it. Seems like there is plenty of agreement with you being expressed here to make you comfortable without having to aggressively go after those who disagree.
bluebell Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think you have put your finger on it here, with perhaps a bit more clarification. The Church itself teaches that whatever it teaches on whatever topic is actually God's will. Hence, I often hear of members substituting God for the Church in their discourse without even recognizing it. For instance, in an Ensign article a year or so ago about how to deal with difficult questions regarding the church and its history, the one all-encompassing answer was boiled down to the question, "Do you trust God?" Of course, what was really meant had nothing to do with whether the troubled member trusted God. What was meant was whether the troubled member trusted the Church's representations that it speaks for God. Which was what made the member troubled in the first place. In a similar vein, Elder Poelman gave a General Conference talk in 1984 delineating the differences between the LDS Church and the gospel. And we all know how well that went over . . . You keep formatting your responses with a "what was really meant..." angle. Try responding to what is actually said instead of your interpretation. It's not fair when other people put words in your mouth and it's not fair when you put words in other people's mouths either. 4
pogi Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's like you can't feel validated unless you are able to skewer in a debate someone who disagrees with you. And that mentality seems to pervade the thread, which apparently was originated to push the point that, if invited to a same-sex wedding, one ought to attend regardless of whether one approves of same-sex marraige. Again, I don't see where anyone here has disputed that. It strikes me as a straw man. I'm not going to try to revisit 12 pages of posts, but as I recall, those things were by way of push-back from those who were being pursued and required to justify their opinions. Again, the thread was initiated by one who apparently has a problem with those who would hold such an opinion. Noted. Seems like there is plenty of agreement with you being expressed here to make you comfortable without having to aggressively go after those who disagree. Who have I skewered? I have consistently stated that I respect your choice not to attend, and that I don't need you to agree with me. Validation is not the same as agreement. I have validated your position but have never received the same respect. This may come as a surprise, but I have felt on the defense this whole debate. You are clearly on the offense here. Edited March 19, 2016 by pogi 4
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Who have I skewered? I have consistently stated that I respect your choice not to attend and that I don't need you to agree with me. Do you know what validation means? I have validated your position but have never received the same respect. This may come as a surprise, but I have felt on the defense this whole debate. You are clearly on the offense hear. Re-read the OP. It was aggressive in tone as it anticipated the opinions of those who would not attend a same-sex wedding because they disapprove of same-sex marriage. The thread continued on that track. And you yourself kept pushing the analogy about Catholic baptisms, even after that had been responded to. If you are feeling "on the defens[ive]," perhaps it is because you have (predictably) provoked some push-back. Edited March 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Ahab Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 4 hours ago, Senator said: Heck ya! Where can I get my Became an A$$ FOR Jesus bumper sticker? You don't need a bumper sticker to let people know you don't approve of people doing bad things, but you could have one made if you want.
pogi Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Re-read the OP. It was aggressive in tone as it anticipated the opinions of those who would not attend a same-sex wedding because they disapprove of same-sex marriage. The thread continued on that track. And you yourself kept pushing the analogy about Catholic baptisms, even after that had been responded to. If you are feeling "on the defens[ive]," perhaps it is because you have (predictably) provoked some push-back. Are we reading the same thread? I think Larson would take offense to your acusation of his intention. He has been nothing but respectful. a few quotes from him: Quote I respect your right to have your own feelings on this Quote I like this and appreciate where you're coming from. I know we disagree on this topic, but your thoughts are respectful and honest. I actually think my friend would be fine with someone responding to their invitation in the manner you explained above and he would completely understand why you wouldn't be attending. Can you show me one quote from your side that resembles anything to the respect and validation shown here? In regards to the Catholic baptism parallel, I kept pushing back because your answers, in my opinion, are weak. But in regard to your choice, I have never once tried to change your mind or agree with me. Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, pogi said: Are we reading the same thread? I think Larson would take offense to your acusation of his intention. He has been nothing but respectful. a few quotes from him: Can you show me one quote from your side that resembles anything to the respect and validation shown here? I won't bother to search through a dozen pages now, but smac97 quite often precedes his expressions of disagreement with the phrase, "with respect," and I remember quite clearly that he has done so in this thread. Quote In regards to the Catholic baptism parallel, I kept pushing back because your answers, in my opinion, are weak. But in regard to your choice, I have never once tried to change your mind or agree with me. You went after me persistently, at one point doing a contrived "re-wording" of my post in a failed attempt to refute it. And I disagree that my response was "weak." You didn't like it, but that doesn't mean it was weak. And someone here went after me merely because I had given a rep point to someone else's post. Edited March 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Author Posted March 18, 2016 40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Re-read the OP. It was aggressive in tone as it anticipated the opinions of those who would not attend a same-sex wedding because they disapprove of same-sex marriage. The thread continued on that track. Care to show where my OP was "aggressive in tone"? I gave background and information for context. Then asked a question. 4
pogi Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I won't bother to search through a dozen pages now, but smac97 quite often precedes his expressions of disagreement with the phrase, "with respect," and I remember quite clearly that he has done so in this thread. In case you were wondering, the phrase "with respect..." was used twice by smack. 1) "with respect, I think you are naive" 2) "with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you." Let me tell you, the feeling of respect is overwhelming! That is equivalent to slugging me in the shoulder, and following up with, "just kidding"! 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You went after me persistently, at one point doing a contrived "re-wording" of my post in a failed attempt to refute it. And I disagree that my response was "weak." You didn't like it, but that doesn't mean it was weak. And someone here went after me merely because I had given a rep point to someone else's post. Playing the martyr is unbecoming. These are dramatic and frivolous accusations. I would never have imagined that re-wording your post would have been offensive to you, I was simply making the point that I could say the exact same thing in regards to attending a gay wedding - and I stand by that point. I will acknowledge your disagreement that your response was week if you acknowledge my disagreement that my response was a "contrived" and a "failed attempt". Edited March 18, 2016 by pogi 3
Jeanne Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Of course, it must be recognized that consiglieri, consistent with his own declaration, approaches these discussions from the standpoint that he has more spirituality than all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve combined, so it stands to reason that he is going to be upset whenever anyone appears to express loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ in a manner that contradicts his opinions, even if that person sincerely believes that the Church and its leaders are aligned with the will of God. Scott...this is you!
carbon dioxide Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 22 hours ago, pogi said: Your last paragraph seems to suggest that I and others are somehow endangering the doctrinal practices of Mormonism by "embracing" or welcoming homosexual behavior "within the doctrinal and cultural structures of Mormonism" by attending a wedding. For the millionth time, I neither embrace or welcome the behavior, I don't rejoice or celebrate the behavior, any more than I would celebrate an infant baptism. There simply is no moral difference in attendance between the 2. You are not protecting the integrity of Mormon ordinances by not attending the wedding. You just aren't. That will never change. Everyone sees things a little differently. I do see a distinction between an infant being baptized and SSM. Both practices are against the teachings of the Lord. One clear distinction is that infant baptism, though an abomination, is a sincere attempt to follow the scriptures of the need for baptism. Those involved simply misunderstand the purpose of baptism and applying it to individuals who are too young to receive it/ They are trying to follow the scriptures but err in doing so. SSM is completely different. One can't error in following the scriptures on this point. There is no provision for SSM in the scriptures in any form. I can at least partially get why Catholics do infant baptism. I don't agree with it but I get it. Also in an infant baptism, the baby receiving it is not under condemnation from God. It is just a baby. All it cares about is food and sleep. This is not true with SSM. Those who are getting married are under further condemnation by God for it. It is for this reason that I would be more willing to go to an infant baptism than a SSM. I can't even foresee any situation in my life of attending either. I know very few Catholics and far fewer gays. Plus I have no problems coming up with excuses to avoid anything that I find objectionable. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, pogi said: In case you were wondering, the phrase "with respect..." was used twice by smack. 1) "with respect, I think you are naive" 2) "with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you." Let me tell you, the feeling of respect is overwhelming! That is equivalent to slugging me in the shoulder, and following up with, "just kidding"! Heh. Take that up with ALarson. It was smac97 whom ALarson was responding to when he said what you quoted above, "I like this and appreciate where you're coming from. I know we disagree on this topic, but your thoughts are respectful and honest. I actually think my friend would be fine with someone responding to their invitation in the manner you explained above and he would completely understand why you wouldn't be attending." Apparently ALarson, the OP, thinks smac97 has been respectful here. I'm sorry you don't. Quote Playing the martyr is unbecoming. Says one who, a moment ago, was complaining about being "on the defens[ive]." Quote These are dramatic and frivolous accusations. I would never have imagined that re-wording your post would have been offensive to you, I was simply making the point that I could say the exact same thing in regards to attending a gay wedding - and I stand by that point. I will acknowledge your disagreement that your response was week if you acknowledge my disagreement that my response was a "contrived" and a "failed attempt". Fine. In case that hasn't been abundantly clear already, I will acknowledge that we disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 30 minutes ago, ALarson said: Care to show where my OP was "aggressive in tone"? I gave background and information for context. Then asked a question. Something about the way you presented the anecdote and contrasted the behavior of your liberal, tolerant and inclusive Mormon friends with that of the benighted non-Mormons who wouldn't attend the gay wedding, and the way you commented on the "irony" of the whole thing, struck me as passive-aggressive well-poisoning in advance of any discussion that might ensue. 2
carbon dioxide Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 If somebody was to attend a SSM, would they see it ok to offer congratulations to the couple? For me, I would be uncomfortable with that as offering congratulations to a single woman who gets pregnant. I have a sister in law who is trying to have a baby with her boyfriend of a number of years. Should I be hopeful that she is successful and celebrate it if she does have a baby. 1
pogi Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Everyone sees things a little differently. I do see a distinction between an infant being baptized and SSM. Both practices are against the teachings of the Lord. One clear distinction is that infant baptism, though an abomination, is a sincere attempt to follow the scriptures of the need for baptism. Those involved simply misunderstand the purpose of baptism and applying it to individuals who are too young to receive it/ They are trying to follow the scriptures but err in doing so. SSM is completely different. One can't error in following the scriptures on this point. There is no provision for SSM in the scriptures in any form. I can at least partially get why Catholics do infant baptism. I don't agree with it but I get it. Also in an infant baptism, the baby receiving it is not under condemnation from God. It is just a baby. All it cares about is food and sleep. This is not true with SSM. Those who are getting married are under further condemnation by God for it. It is for this reason that I would be more willing to go to an infant baptism than a SSM. I can't even foresee any situation in my life of attending either. I know very few Catholics and far fewer gays. Plus I have no problems coming up with excuses to avoid anything that I find objectionable. This is the best argument I have seen in distinguishing SSM and infant baptism. Keep in mind however, that there are indeed Christian sects who sanction gay marriage. I think it would be wrong to accuse them of anything more than, "trying to follow the scriptures but err in doing so", not unlike infant baptism. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted March 18, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 18, 2016 My totally unbiased observation... I don't really see anyone doing much insisting that others agree with their position (though I can see why comments have been read that way), but I do see a lot pushing for a verbal recognition their own opinion is a decent one and not recognizing when such respect is given even though the person believes it may not be the best position to hold. Maybe posters might like to just accept that miscommunication is occurring sufficiently enough the conversation is in a loop and decide it is time to move on to the next conversation even if it feels this one is left more unresolved than one wants. 5
Popular Post ALarson Posted March 18, 2016 Author Popular Post Posted March 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Something about the way you presented the anecdote and contrasted the behavior of your liberal, tolerant and inclusive Mormon friends with that of the benighted non-Mormons who wouldn't attend the gay wedding, and the way you commented on the "irony" of the whole thing, struck me as passive-aggressive well-poisoning in advance of any discussion that might ensue. Wow. That's funny. I added it as a side note as I thought it was ironic and just kind of interesting. But, you call that "aggressive in tone"? I think that's quite the exaggeration, but if you were looking for a reason to be offended by the OP, looks like you found one. It wasn't meant that way at all. I'd like to add that I have enjoyed reading the responses to my OP. Many have been very touching and insightful (both from those saying "no" and those saying "yes" in response to the question in the OP). I think many have been thoughtful and considerate. There have been some surprises in the answers too (which is kind of cool), but I like the ones where there isn't a judgement made one way or the other regarding others giving different answers. 7
CA Steve Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: If somebody was to attend a SSM, would they see it ok to offer congratulations to the couple? For me, I would be uncomfortable with that as offering congratulations to a single woman who gets pregnant. I have a sister in law who is trying to have a baby with her boyfriend of a number of years. Should I be hopeful that she is successful and celebrate it if she does have a baby. Absolutely. Children should be celebrated regardless of what type of relationship brought them into the world. 1
consiglieri Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: You keep formatting your responses with a "what was really meant..." angle. Try responding to what is actually said instead of your interpretation. It's not fair when other people put words in your mouth and it's not fair when you put words in other people's mouths either. I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.
consiglieri Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Care to show where my OP was "aggressive in tone"? I gave background and information for context. Then asked a question. Welcome to the new Mormon church where you can voice any opinion you want . . . so long as you don't use the wrong tone. Which in effect means you actually don't get to voice any opinion you want.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 20 minutes ago, Calm said: My totally unbiased observation... I don't really see anyone doing much insisting that others agree with their position (though I can see why comments have been read that way), but I do see a lot pushing for a verbal recognition their own opinion is a decent one and not recognizing when such respect is given even though the person believes it may not be the best position to hold. Maybe posters might like to just accept that miscommunication is occurring sufficiently enough the conversation is in a loop and decide it is time to move on to the next conversation even if it feels this one is left more unresolved than one wants. OK by me. I've been wanting to disengage from this discussion anyway, and maybe this can be my cue to do so.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Absolutely. Children should be celebrated regardless of what type of relationship brought them into the world. The best way to celebrate the birth of a child is to give her/him every possible advantage from the outset, including a wholesome and stable home with a man and woman married and thus committed to each other and to the well-being of their offspring. Failure to do so is scarcely cause for celebration. Edited March 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: If somebody was to attend a SSM, would they see it ok to offer congratulations to the couple? For me, I would be uncomfortable with that as offering congratulations to a single woman who gets pregnant. I have a sister in law who is trying to have a baby with her boyfriend of a number of years. Should I be hopeful that she is successful and celebrate it if she does have a baby. Depends on the parent's fitness. Could be from anywhere from congratulations to specifc prayers about sperm and egg never meeting.
Recommended Posts