Jeanne Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: People advocating for the Church to permit homosexual behavior ought not be seeking membership in the Church in the first place. Do I want them in the Church? Yes, but not under that circumstance. This is where the church will lose. You can become a member..but..we love you...but...what arrogance it is for a member to require a certain circumstance..not doing..but loving one another. This is sad Scott. The church is losing members and you would think that a newly converted saint should walk away because he feels love for everyone and says so? Tell me, would you feel better if Rockpond walked away? Good people ..you lose good people!! Edited June 4, 2016 by Jeanne 1
Calm Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Turning people away because they advocate loving everyone was not what Scott said. Persuasion will never be effective if one does not focus on what the other's actual position is and addresses that. 2
ksfisher Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: This is where the church will lose. You can become a member..but..we love you...but...what arrogance it is for a member to require a certain circumstance..not doing..but loving one another. This is sad Scott. The church is losing members and you would think that a newly converted saint should walk away because he feels love for everyone and says so? Tell me, would you feel better if Rockpond walked away? Good people ..you lose good people!! I think that you can feel love for everyone and still not advocate or accept sinful behavior. The Savior is our example when it comes to loving all, but not being afraid to call the sinner to repentance. Calling the sinner to repent and return to the right path is part of loving an individual. Edited June 4, 2016 by ksfisher 3
Jeanne Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think that you can feel love for everyone and still not advocate or accept sinful behavior. The Savior is our example when it comes to lovong all, but not being afraid to call the sinner to repentance. Calling the sinner to repent and return to the right path is part of loving an individual. 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think that you can feel love for everyone and still not advocate or accept sinful behavior. The Savior is our example when it comes to lovong all, but not being afraid to call the sinner to repentance. Calling the sinner to repent and return to the right path is part of loving an individual. Newly converted members probably don't want to advocate for anything.. but if a Bishop asks..would one lie about how he feels? Doesn't mean he is going to go out and shout. What do you do about the gut feelings of what is right and wrong..and yet, having a testimony of the restoration?
ksfisher Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Newly converted members probably don't want to advocate for anything.. but if a Bishop asks..would one lie about how he feels? Doesn't mean he is going to go out and shout. What do you do about the gut feelings of what is right and wrong..and yet, having a testimony of the restoration? If my gut is telling me something different than what the Lord's prophet is teaching, perhaps I'd better reexamine my gut. 1
Jeanne Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: If my gut is telling me something different than what the Lord's prophet is teaching, perhaps I'd better reexamine my gut. Maybe alka seltzer would help. I think the best bet is for the bishop to not even ask.
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: What do you do about the gut feelings of what is right and wrong..and yet, having a testimony of the restoration? Recognize all the possible sources of "gut feelings" - light of Christ, mortal emotions, spirit of man/God/adversary, dissonance against societal norms and teachings (aka false traditions), conflict against others, and many other sources. We are subject to many spirits and sources. Part of our responsibility is to learn to recognize which ones come from God himself, and to realize that we can and should ignore the other sources if they contradict the ones that come from God. Despite what is sometimes taught it's actually ok to feel bad when going against feelings and towards God.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: This is where the church will lose. You can become a member..but..we love you...but...what arrogance it is for a member to require a certain circumstance..not doing..but loving one another. This is sad Scott. The church is losing members and you would think that a newly converted saint should walk away because he feels love for everyone and says so? Tell me, would you feel better if Rockpond walked away? Good people ..you lose good people!! We routinely deny or delay baptism because people smoke or refuse to observe the Sabbath. Openly opposing the Church leaders regarding the law of chastity is at least as serious as those things in my view. Repentence is always available to such people, after which they can be baptized. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 8 hours ago, Calm said: Turning people away because they advocate loving everyone was not what Scott said. Persuasion will never be effective if one does not focus on what the other's actual position is and addresses that. 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: People advocating for the Church to permit homosexual behavior ought not be seeking membership in the Church in the first place. Do I want them in the Church? Yes, but not under that circumstance. & y r u so worried about that? 99.999% of church investigators will not do that. Like i said b 4, no one knows and no one cares about the dehlinites.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 I prefer the baptismal interview just the way it is now.
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I prefer the baptismal interview just the way it is now. I don't. It says, "Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?" Why not include heterosexual fornication and adultery questions? Why is the church far more soft on that? On 6/3/2016 at 10:18 AM, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it that, if anything, for many if not most people with SSA, it's not a matter of being all one way or all the other; that they are at some point on a continuum, and that faithful Church members under such circumstance a are not necessarily doomed to a life of celibacy. Duck! Not all LGBT are the same, just because a gay man has a happy marriage with a woman doesn't mean all LGBT can do the same. Everyone has a different chemistry in their brain, different genes, different talents.
thesometimesaint Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 Because serious crime involve actions reflect on the moral character of the person, and the Church. Plus they present a legal impediment to Free Will. It is best to let the individual join AFTER they have served their full and complete sentence. Heterosexual fornication and adultery have always been a part of the baptismal interview. "You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them? The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman?".
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Heterosexual fornication and adultery have always been a part of the baptismal interview. Not true, its not a question about your past. Edited June 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 On June 3, 2016 at 7:41 AM, california boy said: To be consistent, anyone who supports gay marriage should be labeled apostates and their children should not be allowed to be baptized until they turn 18 and denounce their parents beliefs. We don't want children being put in a place where their beliefs are different than their parents those who support gay marriage are in open rebellion against the Lords anointed Next thing you know they are going to wear a rainbow ribbon to church As a man thinketh, so is he CB is correct. If the Church were to be consistent, it would require all new adult converts to denounce gay marriage in order to be baptized. Doing so would eliminate the current double-standard that exists for children of gay couples. Of course, you would then have a new double-standard in which many members who don't denounce gay marriage would still be in the Church. So I guess to be entirely consistent we'd need to go through the church and purge all those who, like me, support gay marriage. 3
Daniel2 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: CB is correct. If the Church were to be consistent, it would require all new adult converts to denounce gay marriage in order to be baptized. Doing so would eliminate the current double-standard that exists for children of gay couples. Of course, you would then have a new double-standard in which many members who don't denounce gay marriage would still be in the Church. So I guess to be entirely consistent we'd need to go through the church and purge all those who, like me, support gay marriage. Fantastic post. Very insightful. The double-standard and mixed messages being sent are truly mind-boggling to understand. 1
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: CB is correct. If the Church were to be consistent, it would require all new adult converts to denounce gay marriage in order to be baptized. Doing so would eliminate the current double-standard that exists for children of gay couples. Of course, you would then have a new double-standard in which many members who don't denounce gay marriage would still be in the Church. So I guess to be entirely consistent we'd need to go through the church and purge all those who, like me, support gay marriage. I'd think the Church would have to re-change the silly policy before it could get to us and send us packing. There's a growing number of us for sure.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: CB is correct. If the Church were to be consistent, it would require all new adult converts to denounce gay marriage in order to be baptized. Doing so would eliminate the current double-standard that exists for children of gay couples. Of course, you would then have a new double-standard in which many members who don't denounce gay marriage would still be in the Church. So I guess to be entirely consistent we'd need to go through the church and purge all those who, like me, support gay marriage. I dont think supporting gay marriage is a problem. Supporting it within the Kingdom of God as divinely ordained would be. I agree with you there. Edited June 7, 2016 by Mystery Meat
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I dont think supporting gay marriage is a problem. Supporting it within the Kingdom of God as divinely ordained would be. I agree with you there. I admit to wondering what the distinction is between sentence one and two above, in your view. Can a child reared by homosexual parents be baptized and yet still support his/her parent's relationship? If not, why not? Because of policy? Can I as a member think gay marriage is as supported by God as any marriage? or is that a problem?
thesometimesaint Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Not true, its not a question about your past. That is absolutely incorrect. Repentance, and forgiveness for sin is always about the past.
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I dont think supporting gay marriage is a problem. Supporting it within the Kingdom of God as divinely ordained would be. I agree with you there. The policy requires that children of a gay couple disavow gay marriage (without your qualifiers) before they can be baptized. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 The Gospel requires that we disavow all sins. 1
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The Gospel requires that we disavow all sins. That's rather ambiguous. Is SSM sin? Sure to the Church, but is it to God? We can only guess.
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: That is absolutely incorrect. Repentance, and forgiveness for sin is always about the past. They ask the investigators, "Have you ever committed... a homosexual relationship?" They don't ask them the same question about fornication or adultery. They don't ask them "HAVE YOU EVER" In fact, if they answer "yes" to " a homosexual relationship?" they need a special interview the the mission president. They don't need the special interview if they committed adultery. Please for once try to read what I am saying. Edited June 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I admit to wondering what the distinction is between sentence one and two above, in your view. Can a child reared by homosexual parents be baptized and yet still support his/her parent's relationship? If not, why not? Because of policy? Can I as a member think gay marriage is as supported by God as any marriage? or is that a problem? I think a member can support legalization of SSM and be very much a worthy member of the Church in all respects. I think a member of the Church should probably not get a temple recommend for supporting, advocating for, and believing that SSM or homosexual sex is not a sin and should be accepted by the Kingdom of God as good. I think that is a clear and appropriate distinction.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: The policy requires that children of a gay couple disavow gay marriage (without your qualifiers) before they can be baptized. See my response to stem.
Recommended Posts