Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was a shockingly insensitive comment you made about an Apostle of Jesus Christ who some day may be the President of the Church, God's spokesman on earth, in a thread that turned out as a vehicle to demean and ridicule the man. Surely you can acknowledge that your wish has serious implications that are based on fact, not on assumptions, perspective, or unreasonable scenarios.

Which one of your scenarios are you hoping for? Would you refuse to sustain him?

It was shocking BECAUSE YOU MISINTURPETED what was meant.  

What is shocking is your relentless continued attack on a statement that you misunderstood even after it has been clarified.

Edited September 18, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Falling short and being led astray I see as very similar.  It comes down to how we love and how we include and how we treat others.  I don't see LGBT individuals as inferior in anyway.  I believe they are worthy and loved by God as they are fully and in every way including their sexual and gender identities.  This is core to the gospel of Jesus that speaks to me, and I'm saddened at how the dominant LDS culture currently falls short.

But I'm hopeful that as individuals humble themselves to be taught truth they will be led to it, and their hearts will open to these truths.  

It is apparent that to you, loving and including others entails accepting and tolerating sinful behavior, at least insofar as it pertains to homosexuality. That has never been a requirement of the gospel of Christ that you claim ksfisher is "falling short" of. 

I don't know ksfisher offline, but from what I've observed here, I'm fairly confident he does not view LGBT people as inferior or unloved by God. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Edited September 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is apparent that to you, loving and including others entails accepting and tolerating sinful behavior, at least insofar as it pertains to homosexuality. That has never been a requirement of the gospel of Christ that you claim ksfisher is "falling short" of. 

I don't know ksfisher offline, but from what I've observed here, I'm fairly confident he does not view LGBT people as inferior or unloved by God. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't believe committed relationships between LGBT individuals is sinful behavior, rather I believe the sinful behavior is prejudice towards LGBT individuals including the church's current policies and teachings that are out of alignment with the will of God on this subject.  

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You made that rather shocking statement. Maybe you didn't consider the implications of hoping he never "makes it to the Presidency." There's only one way that would happen.

Well, that's not true (the "only way"), but hope_for_things has clarified.  Everyone posts things here regarding their feelings without literally following it all the way through to a morbid interpretation or ending and I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his clarifications.

Many people do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from Elder Bednar (I have very devout family members who have expressed pretty much exactly what hope_for-things stated and same with other church members who don't get a very warm feeling from him...but they don't want him dead for heaven's sake). Everyone has Apostles (past and present) who they can relate to better than others or who they have specific, tender feelings for. That doesn't mean they don't like all the others or want anyone to die.  You're carrying this too far, IMO and should read his explanations again and then drop it.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

I really don't think this is a big deal. But wouldn't it be interesting if we did the opposite? The first will be last and the last will be first, the first among you will be servant of all, etc.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Gray

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe committed relationships between LGBT individuals is sinful behavior, rather I believe the sinful behavior is prejudice towards LGBT individuals including the church's current policies and teachings that are out of alignment with the will of God on this subject.  

In that regard you are out of harmony with the doctrines of the church as taught by those whom we sustsin to be prophets, seers, and revelators.  

The central message of the gospel is faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, repentace, baptism by immersion, and the reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  By doing thses things the Lord promises us that we can receive forgiviness of our sins in this life and eternal joy in the next.

We are not showing love for our fellow men if we stand by and watch them continue in sin, which seperates them from God.  The scriptures teach that we will have eternal joy if we are the means of bringing back only one sinner to the Kingdom of God.  

As has been mentioned, our church meetings are a sanctuary from the world.  If we allow them to become any anything less we stand in danger of losing the Holy Spirit and offending God.  

Love is not equal to premisivness. 

[stemelbow]

I marveled a bit yesterday in EQ.  We discussed the general leadership and I would say most brethren in the quorum seemed to at least flirt with crossing the line of worship if not headed right over without concern.  I asked a question but it received poorly, kind of like what happens here on occasion when a question gets asked, so I stayed quiet and observed. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In that regard you are out of harmony with the doctrines of the church as taught by those whom we sustsin to be prophets, seers, and revelators.  

We have been told by an Apostle that good members of the church can support gay marriage as long as we do get involved in an "organized attack" against the church regarding their teachings on this. Members can support gay marriage and stay in good standing with a temple recommend.

"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates"

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In that regard you are out of harmony with the doctrines of the church as taught by those whom we sustsin to be prophets, seers, and revelators.  

The central message of the gospel is faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, repentace, baptism by immersion, and the reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  By doing thses things the Lord promises us that we can receive forgiviness of our sins in this life and eternal joy in the next.

We are not showing love for our fellow men if we stand by and watch them continue in sin, which seperates them from God.  The scriptures teach that we will have eternal joy if we are the means of bringing back only one sinner to the Kingdom of God.  

As has been mentioned, our church meetings are a sanctuary from the world.  If we allow them to become any anything less we stand in danger of losing the Holy Spirit and offending God.  

Love is not equal to premisivness. 

I get your perspective, but I'd disagree.  I think we all sin and yet God seems willing to listen to us anyway.  I don't think God separates from those who are LGBTQ.  I think He wants them as much as you.  It feels so obnoxious to keep repeating that you are speaking for God on this.  I think God knows more than you.  I think when someone who is LGBTQ feels close to God, there is no mistake necessarily. 

Also, I would add, I don't think it violates a sustaining of the leaders to disagree with them on this.  Else they wouldn't give us room to so disagree. 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's not true (the "only way"), but hope_for_things has clarified.  Everyone posts things here regarding their feelings without literally following it all the way through to a morbid interpretation or ending and I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his clarifications.

Many people do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from Elder Bednar (I have very devout family members who have expressed pretty much exactly what hope_for-things stated and same with other church members who don't get a very warm feeling from him...but they don't want him dead for heaven's sake). Everyone has Apostles (past and present) who they can relate to better than others or who they have specific, tender feelings for. That doesn't mean they don't like all the others or want anyone to die.  You're carrying this too far, IMO and should read his explanations again and then drop it.

I think Hope's comment was crass and unbecoming (particularly if he/she is a Latter-day Saint).  I think it presumes that Elder Bednar (I note that Hope cannot even bring himself/herself to include his title) is more like a political candidate or officeholder (beholden to an electorate, and hence necessarily open to public criticism) than an apostle called of God (and hence one of the Lord's anointed, about which the Lord's covenant people should not speak evil or publicly denigrate).

Nevertheless, although his remarks against Elder Bednar are openly unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous, I think we take things too far in construing them as a desire for Elder Bednar to, you know, die.

We can strongly disagree with Hope and his opposition to the Church, and his open contempt for and dislike of various leaders of the LDS Church.  But let's not make him an "offender for a word."  He has clarified his remarks, so let's take that clarification at face value.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Hope's comment was crass and unbecoming (particularly if he/she is a Latter-day Saint).  I think it presumes that Elder Bednar (I note that Hope cannot even bring himself/herself to include his title) is more like a political candidate or officeholder (beholden to an electorate, and hence necessarily open to public criticism) than an apostle called of God (and hence one of the Lord's anointed, about which the Lord's covenant people should not speak evil or publicly denigrate).

Nevertheless, although his remarks against Elder Bednar are openly unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous, I think we take things too far in construing them as a desire for Elder Bednar to, you know, die.

We can strongly disagree with Hope and his opposition to the Church, and his open contempt for and dislike of various leaders of the LDS Church.  But let's not make him an "offender for a word."  He has clarified his remarks, so let's take that clarification at face value.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate the sentiment, particularly since we all know he did not wish he'd die, but I don't think calling it "unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous" is taking his clarification at face value.  I too haven't appreciated a number of things Bednar has said.  not sure I can get on board with some of his reasoning, as he's expressed.  I don't think that's unpleasant, uncharitable, unkind, nor contemptuous.  I personally don't think he being president would change much of what we are now. It seems apostles have as much power, authority and influence, effectively, as the president these days (and since President Monson doesn't have that anymore, Bednar has more influence than he).  I try to get something good out of his addresses and contributions and don't hold it against him, but also I don't think I shy away from expressing disagreement. 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Hope's comment was crass and unbecoming (particularly if he/she is a Latter-day Saint).  I think it presumes that Elder Bednar (I note that Hope cannot even bring himself/herself to include his title) is more like a political candidate or officeholder (beholden to an electorate, and hence necessarily open to public criticism) than an apostle called of God (and hence one of the Lord's anointed, about which the Lord's covenant people should not speak evil or publicly denigrate).

Well, that's your opinion and I respect your right to feel that way.  As has been posted, there are numerous stories about Elder Bednar (mostly anecdotal, I agree...but still numerous) that have caused many members to not feel any "warm fuzzies" for him.  That doesn't mean they hate him or even that they don't like him.....and most definitely it does not mean they want him dead or don't respect his position.  

I think if most of us are honest, we have different feelings towards different Apostles and even past Prophets.  Many felt the same way regarding Pres. Packer becoming Prophet (for many different reasons).  It's human to look and view other humans and have reactions to their personalities, leadership styles and opinions they've voiced and so on.  That's not crass, it's just being honest.  If you think we all should adore and worship all of the leaders equally just because of the calling they have, then I think that is the definition of "hero worship" and many on here have stated that does not occur with the leaders.  

But, hope_for_things has clarified.  You may still not agree, but you should take him at his word I think regarding what he meant.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have been told by an Apostle that good members of the church can support gay marriage as long as we do get involved in an "organized attack" against the church regarding their teachings on this. Members can support gay marriage and stay in good standing with a temple recommend.

"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates"

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

I didn't say anything about a member not being in good standing for supporting gay marriage or about temple recommends.  Hope for Things asserted that the church's stance on gay marriage was out of alignment with the will of God.  I was responding to that, not to questions regarding standing or recommends.

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get your perspective, but I'd disagree.  I think we all sin and yet God seems willing to listen to us anyway.  I don't think God separates from those who are LGBTQ.  I think He wants them as much as you.  It feels so obnoxious to keep repeating that you are speaking for God on this.  I think God knows more than you.  I think when someone who is LGBTQ feels close to God, there is no mistake necessarily. 

Also, I would add, I don't think it violates a sustaining of the leaders to disagree with them on this.  Else they wouldn't give us room to so disagree. 

I'm not asserting that God will not listen to anyone.  All sin and fall short of His glory.  God wishes for all His children to repent and return to Him.

I don't think that I'm trying to speak for God on the matter.  He has chosen apostles and prophets to do so.  I do think that I am clearly stating what they are teaching on this matter.

We are given room to disagree because God has granted us agency.  We are to freely choose to follow or not.  That is our choice.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get your perspective, but I'd disagree.  I think we all sin and yet God seems willing to listen to us anyway.  I don't think God separates from those who are LGBTQ. 

I agree.  That's why there is a single, unified Law of Chastity that applies to all of us.  The constraint against sex outside of marriage ("marriage" as defined by the Church, not by the world) applies to all of us.  The constraints against fornication and adultery and pornography and sexual abuse apply to all of us.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think He wants them as much as you. 

I agree.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It feels so obnoxious to keep repeating that you are speaking for God on this. 

But . . . aren't you claiming to be "speaking for God on this" too?  Does that make you obnoxious also?  Or just hypocritical?

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think God knows more than you. 

I agree.  I also think God communicates his knowledge and will through revelation to prophets and apostles, and also to us individually.  So if what I believe individually is manifestly at odds with the cumulative and uniform teachings of past and present prophets and apostles, and if what I believe also happens to follow along with worldly trends, then I give my personal beliefs some real scrutiny.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think when someone who is LGBTQ feels close to God, there is no mistake necessarily. 

I have known many people who feel close to God, but who are nevertheless living in ways out of harmony with His will.  That's . . . pretty much all of us at times.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also, I would add, I don't think it violates a sustaining of the leaders to disagree with them on this. 

I think we need to be cautious about such things.  For our sakes.  Elder Oaks summarized things well in this 1987 Ensign article, titled "Criticism."

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Else they wouldn't give us room to so disagree. 

I agree.  But that room is not unlimited.  Consider these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphasis added):

Quote

Michael Otterson: Elder Christofferson, a lot of attention has been given over the last year or so to the Church's very prominent outreach and message on being fair to everyone — the idea of "fairness for all," and that phrase has been used a lot. How does the fairness for all approach, particularly in relation to same-gender attraction, fit in this particular conversation?

Elder Christofferson: Very consistently. This is really two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case. The Church of course doesn't attempt to practice mind control, and people have varying opinions. It's only a problem if there is advocacy and people lobby and advocate against the standard and the very clear and expressed position of the Church as it has been stated repeatedly, and again now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I didn't say anything about a member not being in good standing for supporting gay marriage or about temple recommends.  Hope for Things asserted that the church's stance on gay marriage was out of alignment with the will of God.

I think many feel that way (that this policy did not come from God, but from man).  Many hope it will be changed in the future as well.  I've seen a great many active members voice this opinion (including my Bishop and other ward and stake leaders).  I see very few anxious to enforce it as well.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  That's why there is a single, unified Law of Chastity that applies to all of us.  The constraint against sex outside of marriage ("marriage" as defined by the Church, not by the world) applies to all of us.  The constraints against fornication and adultery and pornography and sexual abuse apply to all of us.

I agree.

But . . . aren't you claiming to be "speaking for God on this" too?  Does that make you obnoxious also?  Or just hypocritical?

I'm trying to qualify it all by saying "I think..." suggesting there is plenty of room to disagree with me. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I also think God communicates his knowledge and will through revelation to prophets and apostles, and also to us individually.  So if what I believe individually is manifestly at odds with the cumulative and uniform teachings of past and present prophets and apostles, and if what I believe also happens to follow along with worldly trends, then I give my personal beliefs some real scrutiny.

I have known many people who feel close to God, but who are nevertheless living in ways out of harmony with His will.  That's . . . pretty much all of us at times.

I think we need to be cautious about such things.  For our sakes.  Elder Oaks summarized things well in this 1987 Ensign article, titled "Criticism."

I agree.  But that room is not unlimited.  Consider these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.  I'm not so certain God does not intend those who are gay to not get married to those whom they love and choose to marry...for instance.  I'm glad we have much to agree on, but in the end, I think there is definite disagreement.  I don't find it helpful to talk about LGBTQ as if they are a lost and sinful people, surely, without question, living opposed to God's desires. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think many feel that way (that this policy did not come from God, but from man).  Many hope it will be changed in the future as well.  I've seen a great many active members voice this opinion (including my Bishop and other ward and stake leaders).  I see very few anxious to enforce it as well.

Then I would say that your bishop as well as other stake leaders, as good a people as they may be, as also out of harmony with the teachings of the church on this subject.  Church policies may change in the future, but until they do church leaders have an obligation to abide by those policies.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Then I would say that your bishop as well as other stake leaders, as good a people as they may be, as also out of harmony with the teachings of the church on this subject. 

And we as members do not have to agree with everything regarding church leaders' statements and policies to still be in harmony with the gospel of Christ.  These are men.  The Adam/God doctrine taught for over 25 years by the living Prophet is a good example of how they can be wrong and make mistakes.  Were those who disagreed with him "out of harmony" with the gospel or just "out of harmony" with teachings that a later Prophet labeled "anti-Mormon"?  Members have a right to their own discernment and personal revelations on a topic.  That was true back then and it is still true today.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I appreciate the sentiment, particularly since we all know he did not wish he'd die, but I don't think calling it "unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous" is taking his clarification at face value. 

A member of the Church publicly expressing dislike of an apostle, and publicly declaring that he (the member) hopes that a certain apostle will never become president of the Church, is manifestly "unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous."

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I too haven't appreciated a number of things Bednar has said. 

I can understand that.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

not sure I can get on board with some of his reasoning, as he's expressed. 

I understand that as well.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think that's unpleasant, uncharitable, unkind, nor contemptuous. 

The foregoing remarks are substantively different, in tone and content, from what Hope said about Elder Bednar.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I personally don't think he being president would change much of what we are now. 

Again, that is a vastly different statement from Hope's denigrating comments about Elder Bednar.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems apostles have as much power, authority and influence, effectively, as the president these days (and since President Monson doesn't have that anymore, Bednar has more influence than he). 

I think the apostles are fairly unified.  It's not like Elder Bednar is a loose cannon.  And while they no doubt have their disagreements, they do not publish them to the world.  That is how it should be.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I try to get something good out of his addresses and contributions and don't hold it against him, but also I don't think I shy away from expressing disagreement. 

I think this 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks is an important resource for gauging our public statements about the leaders of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

In that regard you are out of harmony with the doctrines of the church as taught by those whom we sustsin to be prophets, seers, and revelators.  

The central message of the gospel is faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, repentace, baptism by immersion, and the reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  By doing thses things the Lord promises us that we can receive forgiviness of our sins in this life and eternal joy in the next.

We are not showing love for our fellow men if we stand by and watch them continue in sin, which seperates them from God.  The scriptures teach that we will have eternal joy if we are the means of bringing back only one sinner to the Kingdom of God.  

As has been mentioned, our church meetings are a sanctuary from the world.  If we allow them to become any anything less we stand in danger of losing the Holy Spirit and offending God.  

Love is not equal to premisivness. 

Or if the church and its current teachings are incorrect (as they have been in the past on certain topics) and this behavior is not sin, how many lives are negatively impacted under the premise that God is supporting this prejudice?  

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And we as members do not have to agree with everything regarding church leaders' statements and policies to still be in harmony with the gospel of Christ.  These are men.  The Adam/God doctrine taught for over 25 years by the living Prophet is a good example of how they can be wrong and make mistakes.  Were those who disagreed with him "out of harmony" with the gospel or just "out of harmony" with teachings that a later Prophet labeled "anti-Mormon"?  Members have a right to their own discernment and personal revelations on a topic.  That was true back then and it is still true today.

Members of the church have a right to disagree.  However, as a leader I do not have to right to publicly disagree with my leaders.  I may do so privately, but in public I support and sustain their decisions. 

The Adam/God doctrine was never the doctrine of the church.  I may have been taught at times by Brigham Young, but it was never consistently taught by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

The teachings of the church in regards to gay marriage however, have been and are being taught by their united voice.  We need not doubt where they stand.  It is thought, our choice to follow the Lord's prophets and apostles or choose another path.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Or if the church and its current teachings are incorrect (as they have been in the past on certain topics) and this behavior is not sin, how many lives are negatively impacted under the premise that God is supporting this prejudice?  

That is a hypothetical to which we have and can have no answer. 

There is, however, safety in following the prophet. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A member of the Church publicly expressing dislike of an apostle, and publicly declaring that he (the member) hopes that a certain apostle will never become president of the Church, is manifestly "unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous."

I dont' find your accusation as manifestly the case at all.  I think it's more a difference of opinion.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can understand that.

I understand that as well.

The foregoing remarks are substantively different, in tone and content, from what Hope said about Elder Bednar.

Again, that is a vastly different statement from Hope's denigrating comments about Elder Bednar.

K.  I'm guessing I did miss some of what he said. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the apostles are fairly unified.  It's not like Elder Bednar is a loose cannon.  And while they no doubt have their disagreements, they do not publish them to the world.  That is how it should be.

Sure. I agree for the most part. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks is an important resource for gauging our public statements about the leaders of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Thanks.  I don't think he really defied this. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Members of the church have a right to disagree.  However, as a leader I do not have to right to publicly disagree with my leaders.  I may do so privately, but in public I support and sustain their decisions. 

I'm curious what the point of that is? 

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Adam/God doctrine was never the doctrine of the church.  I may have been taught at times by Brigham Young, but it was never consistently taught by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'd think you'd have much to defend to continue to hold to this. 

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The teachings of the church in regards to gay marriage however, have been and are being taught by their united voice.  We need not doubt where they stand.  It is thought, our choice to follow the Lord's prophets and apostles or choose another path.

Sadly, at times in history there were times when we need not doubt where they stand and yet, as it turned out, at some point, their teachings were considered wrong by later leaders.  It'll happen again, I'm sure.