Greg Trimble's Own Answer to His Article on the 'Coming Mormon Revolution'

[Five Solas]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It gets a lot of press because bloggers defend and attack it, people have strong feelings on it, and news articles comment on it.

In LDS meetings I think I have heard the church's stance on homosexuality once in the last year while in a Gospel Principles Law of Chastity lesson and that reference was pretty oblique. I can think of two testimonies in my life that mentioned it, one talk over the pulpit, and a few announcements about changes in state laws asking for help (3-4 times?). It sometimes comes up in chastity and moral purity lessons in Sunday School and Priesthood but those come up maybe once a year in my experience. We are not fixated and do not spend a ton of time talking about it. From the outside looking in it may seem that way because our much more numerous discussions of Faith, Repentance, Charity, and Temple Work do not get people worked up for whatever reason.

Listening to comments like yours makes it sound like we get fist-pounding sermons on the evils of the godless sodomites on a weekly basis.

Well, I'll certainly concede the content of the LDS Sunday 3-hour block differs in emphasis from the LDS discourse served on the internet. 

But the point I've made stands, because lot more people will hear about Mormonism from the press/internet than will ever walk through LDS chapel doors and thereby experience the block.  So if I were an LDS blogger and/or in LDS leadership, I'd find myself a new hobbyhorse.  Because it's hard to see how this helps the authors' cause, or anything else.  A point both you & Vance appear to concede.  Who would have thought I could bring the two of you together...

;0)

--Erik

________________________________

Oh, so I drank one
It became four
And when I fell on the floor...
...I drank more
 
Stop me, oh, stop me
Stop me if you think that you've
Heard this one before

--The Smiths

[Vance]

42 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

 A point both you & Vance appear to concede.  Who would have thought I could bring the two of you together...

Ah, yes.  We both concede that you don't know what you are talking about.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Well, I'll certainly concede the content of the LDS Sunday 3-hour block differs in emphasis from the LDS discourse served on the internet. 

But the point I've made stands, because lot more people will hear about Mormonism from the press/internet than will ever walk through LDS chapel doors and thereby experience the block.  So if I were an LDS blogger and/or in LDS leadership, I'd find myself a new hobbyhorse.  Because it's hard to see how this helps the authors' cause, or anything else.  A point both you & Vance appear to concede.  Who would have thought I could bring the two of you together...

;0)

--Erik

If the internet discourse were one-sided this would make sense. If we dropped it now we would be accused of ignoring what the other side is constantly going on about. Admittedly I could live with that but most bloggers and internet people address things that others say about us and I do not blame them for doing so.

And yeah, I feel unclean.

Maybe if I say that gossip often does more damage then homosexuality I can get him to disagree with me again.

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

And why should I care about anything he says?

This is a discussion board where topics that pertain to the LDS faith are discussed. Greg Trimble, an LDS blogger, wrote a couple of interesting articles that pertain to the teachings and doctrines of the LDS faith, and (surprise! surprise!) the participants on this discussion board are discussing Trimble's two interesting LDS-oriented articles. You see, we discuss things that pertain to the LDS Church here, so keep that in mind next time a similar question intrudes on your mind. Hope this brief explanation will help.

P.S. If you write LDS Church oriented articles, there's a good chance we'll discuss them here as well. But just be sure the articles are interesting.

[Guest]

On March 29, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Bobbieaware said:

having the members gradually abandon the Lord's standards of righteousness so as to not offend and alienate investigators who are caught up in those sinful behaviors that are no longer considered to sinful by the vast majority of the human race... Talk about an obstacle course!

Indeed and obstacle course...as the list of what the majority of people view as no longer being sinful grows larger every day, in fact so many don't believe much of anything is sinful other than rape, murder, child molestation, sealing, and so on. Few see anything sinful that goes on between consenting adults. So for a Church who sees marriage between a man and a woman as one of it's most sacred doctrines...the gap is so wide and deep, don't know how this can be overcome. 

[CMZ]

On 3/31/2017 at 10:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Listening to comments like yours makes it sound like we get fist-pounding sermons on the evils of the godless sodomites on a weekly basis.

I too get the impression that people feel that is what happens.

[CMZ]

On 4/1/2017 at 0:37 AM, mrmarklin said:

And why should I care about anything he says?

Greg Trimble is a guy who wrote a probably well-intentioned blog entry exhorting people to read their scriptures, to be nice to each other, and to not be judgmental towards others. And then everyone fawned over the article with this strange supposition that the Church has never ever ever taught these same exact things and that Greg Trimble was needed to come along and say them.

Edited April 2, 2017 by CMZ

[RevTestament]

On 3/30/2017 at 9:01 AM, california boy said:

He starts out with this premise

Yet all churches do exactly that.  They pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to be true and what parts they want to be opinions of men.  He goes on to make a jab at homosexuals.  He admits that Christ never said anything about homosexuals.  Nor is there anything in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C.  Yet he quotes from a letter Paul wrote to the Romans.  Was Paul writing doctrine in the letter?  Where did Paul get that doctrine.  And why doesn't the church accept all the other opinions of Paul in his letters to various churches.  Simply this.  All churches, just like the people he calls out uses the scriptures like a buffet, picking and choosing what they want to believe and teach.  I don't have a problem with this.  Every church can pick and choose whatever they want from the scriptures and believe that only they understand the meaning of the scriptures.  But let's not pretend that they also eat from the buffet table. The Mormon church is just as guilty of doing that as all the others.  Yet their special claim is that they have a prophet of God.  So their buffet is the real one, until the prophet says something wrong, then they are just fallible men.  Just something to think about.  We all want our buffet to be the real one.

 

I hesitate to even respond, but a part of me just can't help it. Jesus did not do away with sin. Sins of the OT remain sins in the new as demonstrated by Paul. Jesus did away with the Mosaic punishments for sin. Thus, we aren't to stone homosexuals. We are to love them. That does not mean that we are supposed to change our minds that what they are doing is sinful. I have a relative who has chosen that lifestyle, but I treat him like everyone else. Nevertheless, he is a sinner. Of course we are all sinners. The difference is one cannot choose to knowingly sin and expect to have the spirit abide with them. I know Gays will continue to expect to be treated like every other Christian, but the Church simply cannot do that. Nor can the Church indulge those who continuously use pornography or live adulterous relationships, since the scriptures state that to lust after others is sin. So really I guess what I am saying is that unless those with SSA want to marry traditionally, the Church expects them to remain celibate. While in today's society that is somewhat abnormal, that is our fault as a society. I remained celibate until I married my wife at 32. While it kinda sucked, I had long chosen not to engage in irresponsible relationships or sex. Our society has almost completely lost this restraint, and even denigrates virgins. Thus, about 40% of white mothers are single, and about 70% of black mothers are single. I believe this is largely due to sex education without the Christian morals, and a shortsighted welfare and tax system that rewards single mothers. A single mother with a 20,000 job can get a big tax refund as head of household, which she will lose if she marries a man making the same. Although the tax structured did work to help get people off welfare after Reagan, it needs to be reworked. But it won't because it will seem too harsh for the poor single mother, who is single through no fault of her own. In order to reverse the trend though we need some kind of economic incentive for couples to stay married or just scrap the system.

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I remained celibate until I married my wife at 32. While it kinda sucked, I had long chosen not to engage in irresponsible relationships or sex.

45 for me. It absolutely can be done and it is unsettling to hear so many voices say that such a thing is impossible and out of the question. Not "happy" about having waited so long but am glad that I didn't get myself entangled in relationships that would not turn out to be eternal.

[california boy]

On 4/2/2017 at 0:23 PM, RevTestament said:

I hesitate to even respond, but a part of me just can't help it. Jesus did not do away with sin. Sins of the OT remain sins in the new as demonstrated by Paul. Jesus did away with the Mosaic punishments for sin. Thus, we aren't to stone homosexuals. We are to love them. That does not mean that we are supposed to change our minds that what they are doing is sinful. I have a relative who has chosen that lifestyle, but I treat him like everyone else. Nevertheless, he is a sinner. Of course we are all sinners. The difference is one cannot choose to knowingly sin and expect to have the spirit abide with them. I know Gays will continue to expect to be treated like every other Christian, but the Church simply cannot do that. Nor can the Church indulge those who continuously use pornography or live adulterous relationships, since the scriptures state that to lust after others is sin. So really I guess what I am saying is that unless those with SSA want to marry traditionally, the Church expects them to remain celibate. While in today's society that is somewhat abnormal, that is our fault as a society. I remained celibate until I married my wife at 32. While it kinda sucked, I had long chosen not to engage in irresponsible relationships or sex. Our society has almost completely lost this restraint, and even denigrates virgins. Thus, about 40% of white mothers are single, and about 70% of black mothers are single. I believe this is largely due to sex education without the Christian morals, and a shortsighted welfare and tax system that rewards single mothers. A single mother with a 20,000 job can get a big tax refund as head of household, which she will lose if she marries a man making the same. Although the tax structured did work to help get people off welfare after Reagan, it needs to be reworked. But it won't because it will seem too harsh for the poor single mother, who is single through no fault of her own. In order to reverse the trend though we need some kind of economic incentive for couples to stay married or just scrap the system.

I am not, nor ever had suggested that anyone do away with sin.  It is a false premise that you are starting with.  The point I was making is that religious organizations like the Mormon church decides what is sin and what is not.  And they selectively use scripture to back up what they consider sin is, and ignore scripture on things prohibited in the Bible that they don't want to consider sin.  You and the Mormon church have decided that homosexuality is a sin, and they base that belief on the words of Paul, as did the guy that wrote the blog.  So if you are going to use the words of Paul as a basis of what is a sin and what is not a sin, why ignore all the other things that Paul also clearly condemns.  Women wearing make up,  Or wearing jewelry.  Or praying in church.  Or even women teaching in church.  That is also part of the doctrine that Paul believed in completely and taught just as forcefully. 

The reason is, church organizations also use scriptures like a buffet table.  Choosing what they want to be a sin and ignoring the things that they don't want to be a sin.  

I don't take your comments personally.  I really don't care what the church thinks is a sin and what they do not consider to be a sin.  But let's not pretend that the church does not pick and choose from scriptures in exactly the same way as individuals do.  The only difference is they are making the choice for individuals.  And if you don't make the same choices from the buffet table as the church, then you are an apostate and a sinner.  That's how religious dogma works.