There is no such thing as a liberal Mormon

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

 Liberal threats?  How about gay marriage, legalized pot, Planned Parenthood, abortion for starters.  And then we could always talk about the dangers and overreach of BLM, both the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter.  

Any relation to Cliven Bundy by chance?

You have the opposite fear of Patrick Mason it seems:

Quote

My second fear is for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism. I’m not referring to fundamentalism in terms of polygamy—I’m pretty confident we’re totally past that phase of our history. Instead, this is a reference to what I think is the rather remote possibility of a process similar to what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990s, when theological fundamentalists took over the churches, seminaries, and governing bodies of the denomination and either pushed out liberals and moderates or made their lives in the church so miserable that they left on their own, thus leaving only the fundamentalists to control the whole denomination.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions

Good to have you.

[thesometimesaint]

We have no autograph by Jesus. However it becomes problematic to faith to claim the Scriptures are a deliberate fabrication of someone else.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, obviously not. But it's possible the author was referencing Paul, putting the words into Jesus' mouth, as it were. 

I need to get a better grasp on the political motivations of why and what was included in different scriptures.  I recall reading, it might be Misquoting Jesus, by Ehrman which seemed to try and get to the motivations of why some thing s were found in the scriptures.  Pretty interesting.  I certainly wouldn't put it past anyone and in truth I don't see how I could hold it against anyone for putting words into Jesus' mouth.  They were afterall, just the receivers of stories passed down.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have no autograph by Jesus. However it becomes problematic to faith to claim the Scriptures are a deliberate fabrication of someone else.

Well all things can be problematic to faith when we rely on things that in study come out to be in question.  We can't shun possibilities because it might be troublesome to those who made assumptions about what happened.  When we start to learn what really happened that may destroy faith or put faith in a more healthy perspective. 

I say take your pick.  Get stuck defending assumptions or accept we simply can't guess at things in order to make faith viable. 

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

 Liberal threats?  How about gay marriage, legalized pot, Planned Parenthood, abortion for starters.  And then we could always talk about the dangers and overreach of BLM, both the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter.  

Those are among the most significant threats to the Church?  How do gay marriage, legalized pot, Planned Parenthood, abortion, BLM overreach, and Black Lives Matter threaten the church?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I need to get a better grasp on the political motivations of why and what was included in different scriptures.  I recall reading, it might be Misquoting Jesus, by Ehrman which seemed to try and get to the motivations of why some thing s were found in the scriptures.  Pretty interesting.  I certainly wouldn't put it past anyone and in truth I don't see how I could hold it against anyone for putting words into Jesus' mouth.  They were afterall, just the receivers of stories passed down.

As I understand it Paul was quite polarizing, and was his teachings were not universally accepted. The Epistle of James also seems to be a criticism of the teachings of Paul, when the author talks about works being needed and faith alone being insufficient. 

Of course the teachings of Paul would go on to shape the development of Christianity over the last 2000 years. So I guess he was vindicated. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have no autograph by Jesus. However it becomes problematic to faith to claim the Scriptures are a deliberate fabrication of someone else.

Problematic? I'd describe it as realistic. The gospels are compositions, they're not histories. Not to say that something of the historical Jesus didn't end up in the gospels, but a lot more went into it than that. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/19/2016 at 2:41 PM, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot.  I question whether I fit, for sure.  If Elder Oaks had his way, I might be out.  But I'm here.  I don't know if I'm welcome.  It's a mixed bag on that.  I guess we'll see. 

Sometimes I get encouraged that we are becoming open, thoughtful and helpful.  Other times I get discouraged as it seems many in the Church want me out, hoping to secure themselves a more comfortable place called Church. 

I'm not sure what to make of this.  Thanks for your thoughts though.

I can't agree with you here. Being a long time resigned member I don't think The Church belongs to the Elder oaks or even Prophet Monson to throw you out. It's totally up to you how much comfortable you feel in it or not. If Robert Kirby feels OK in Church then it is not impossible for anyone feel uncomfortable. 

I won't go as far as declaring "I love this Church & People" but I like the people and have very little communication  with Church. The Land of Utah is magical though, there are very few (if any) highways I did not travel on. People have been always cordial and alot to share, my last visit I met a gentlemen who played football at BYU, telling me how many operations he went through and his encounter with Football Gods, like Merlin Olsen....I told him my good years at U when Jim McMahon, Steve Young regularly whipped their rear end. Utah is such a place I think Darwin would trade Galapagos Islands on a heartbeat to be here.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

Hi rockpond.  What I am saying is those specific beliefs may not be the most dangerous things, but when the members believe and ascribe to them and start to teach others they are acceptable in society, the church membership in general could be in jeopardy of falling into apostasy by discarding the commandments and teachings of the prophets.  

Gay Marriage - an apostle recently stated that it is okay for members to support legal recognition of gay marriage.

Marijuana - I'm not aware of any scriptural prohibitions against it.

Planned Parenthood - Do you have something in our doctrine that says we can't support this?

Abortion - Personally, I think it is a horrifying practice but I admit it is a gray area since even the Brethren are okay with it under certain circumstances.

Sorry... I'm not following your thought process.

[Atheist Mormon]

Tell that to Robert Kirby see how would he respond to you.

[maklelan]

34 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

I think Mason is way off on this one.  I just don't see how a faithful mormon could justify supporting planned parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control etc.  Do we really want members like that preaching their liberal values in Sundays School class and church picnics?  

I am a faithful Mormon who works for the Church and am at this very moment on an island in the South Pacific beginning a new translation of the scriptures, and I absolutely support Planned Parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control. I just don't see how a faithful Mormon could justify facilitating the oppression and injury of women in the name of grotesquely uneducated and petty identity politics.

[maklelan]

21 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

Elder Oaks and President Monson speak for the lord.  They have every right to define the rules and doctrines. It is fine to be liberal and believe whatever you want as a mormon.  Just don't teach and preach false doctrines as acceptable, such as gay marriage and planned parenthood etc to other members and you'll be fine.

I think you may need to reconsider where doctrine ends and where contemporary American conservative Christian identity politics begins. I would call the naive conflation of the two a pretty significant false doctrine in and of itself.

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, maklelan said:

I am a faithful Mormon who works for the Church and am at this very moment on an island in the South Pacific beginning a new translation of the scriptures, and I absolutely support Planned Parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control. I just don't see how a faithful Mormon could justify facilitating the oppression and injury of women in the name of grotesquely uneducated and petty identity politics.

Does your support of Planned Paenthood mean.you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? 

A follow-up question:

 If you are pro-choice, do you believe aborting an unborn child as a post-conception form of birth control is not sinful?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Brother Bundy said:

 Liberal threats?  How about gay marriage, legalized pot, Planned Parenthood, abortion for starters.  And then we could always talk about the dangers and overreach of BLM, both the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter.  

Let's take those one at a time.

No one is forcing you to marry a gay.

 Legalized pot is a libertarian idea. Not a liberal one, and no one is forcing you to smoke it.

Planned Parenthood provides a broad range of health services to women and men at low or no cost to the recipie3nt.

Abortion is provided for in the Bible, and the Church has liberal rules concerning it.

So Black Lives Matter not to you?

So you're fine with the Bundy's committing armed treason?

Edited August 22, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Does your support of Planned Paenthood mean.you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? 

A follow-up question:

 If you are pro-choice, do you believe aborting an unborn child as a post-conception form of birth control is not sinful?

Technically the official church position is pro-choice, although anti-abortion generally. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Brother Bundy said:

 Liberal threats?  How about gay marriage, legalized pot, Planned Parenthood, abortion for starters.  And then we could always talk about the dangers and overreach of BLM, both the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter.  

I thought the nuts who occupied the Wildlife Refuge were still in prison. Do they give you email access?

Edited August 22, 2016 by The Nehor

[maklelan]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

Does your support of Planned Paenthood mean.you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? 

A follow-up question:

 If you are pro-choice, do you believe aborting an unborn child as a post-conception form of birth control is not sinful?

Of course it means I'm pro-choice. It's not my position or desire to declare where the boundaries of sin lie, but I find opposition to the legality and accessibility of abortion absolutely unconscionable.

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Does your support of Planned Paenthood mean.you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? 

A follow-up question:

 If you are pro-choice, do you believe aborting an unborn child as a post-conception form of birth control is not sinful?

Yes, and so does the Church.

No, and so does the does the Church.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

[Jeanne]

This is just my opinion okay?  For myself, abortion would never be okay..I am against abortion as birth control.  That being said, I have no right to take away the rights of women I do not know..or know their circumstances.  Many years ago, there was a friend that received birth control from Planned parenthood..no where else to go and she was young without the guidance at home.  It was after we graduated that she told me that she was being raped by uncle so and so...and it was a fear of pregnancy and the dire consequences of family that she connected with PP.  In any case, I think that PP provides services way outside abortion that contributes to a healthier life for those who are not apt to get help from home or church.  I am thinking we under estimate just the power they have to be there for a young woman to talk to....some answers!

Edited August 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

I am a faithful Mormon who works for the Church and am at this very moment on an island in the South Pacific beginning a new translation of the scriptures, and I absolutely support Planned Parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control. I just don't see how a faithful Mormon could justify facilitating the oppression and injury of women in the name of grotesquely uneducated and petty identity politics.

Given this poster's chosen name, I find it highly unlikely the man/woman behind the puppet is anything close to the parody claimed to be.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

Since when has the LDS church been pro-choice?  I understand they allow it in limited exceptions, but even then one must get permission from their Bishop and they have made it clear church discipline is possible.  Have I missed a conference talk or something where the church has changed their position?

 

According the manual, abortion is permitted in cases of incest or medical danger. Abortion has to be legal in order for women to have abortion in those circumstances. Ergo the official position defaults to pro-choice, but  generally anti-abortion. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given this poster's chosen name, I find it highly unlikely the man/woman behind the puppet is anything close to the parody claimed to be.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is a parody account. 

[maklelan]

2 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but I grew up hearing over and over again about the evils of birth control.  I have family members that absolutely refused to get birth control when they got married because of the teachings they heard in young men's and women's classes.  They were married and had kids in 10 months, and considered it their duty to do so.

 

I'm I crazy, or did I get taught false doctrine?

Church ideology changes. That's why today we have a new statement at the beginning of Official Declaration 2 stating that we don't know the circumstances surrounding the institution of the Priesthood ban. The Church's current position is that decisions regarding birth control rest entirely with the couple. The false doctrine is the notion that the Church's teachings unilaterally are univocal, innerant, and eternal.

[maklelan]

3 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

I hope I have not said something inflammatory or against the rules?  Sorry if I did and I will cease on the this topic since it seems like I've already made some enemies. 

I don't think you've made any enemies, I'm just criticizing a position with which I disagree. Have you found something I've said objectionable?

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

Since when has the LDS church been pro-choice?  I understand they allow it in limited exceptions, but even then one must get permission from their Bishop and they have made it clear church discipline is possible.  Have I missed a conference talk or something where the church has changed their position?

 

Members do not need to get permission from their Bishop to have an abortion.  They are counseled to consult with their bishops and seek divine confirmation through prayer.

Here is the full policy from Handbook 1:

Quote

17.3.1

Abortion The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when: 1.  Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. 2.  A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. 3.  A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Even these exceptions do not justify abortionautomatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer. Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline. As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.