Kenngo1969 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 On 6/23/2018 at 12:50 PM, california boy said: No, I don't feel at all welcomed in the church. That's unfortunate. I don't think anyone deserves to be ostracized, and I hope I haven't contributed to that. If I have, it's something I'll have to work on changing. Quote I don't feel welcomed to be on this board by those that feel every post is some kind of challenge to defend the church to the point that they don't even listen to what I am saying. All of us, myself included (perhaps especially so) could do a better job seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. You're right that I could do a better job of that. I'll work on it. Quote It is just too easy to label me as being anti-Mormon. Something that I take quite offense to being called. To the extent that you oppose, publicly, the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps it is an apt descriptor. On the other hand, you're right to the extent that beliefs are something people have, not something they are. I'll have to do a better job remembering that. Quote It is just too easy to give two thumbs up when a poster maligns me personally. The dozens of times I have taken issue with the substance of things you have written notwithstanding, I don't know that I have ever maligned you personally. If I have, I apologize. Quote And no, I don't think you have ever said anything to me that indicated that you thought there was a place for me in the church. I have no stewardship over you, so whether I believe there is a place for you in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is irrelevant. I certainly don't think anyone should be ostracized. To the extent that I have created an opposite impression, I apologize, and that's something I'll have to work on. That said, the Church of Jesus Christ is a community that coheres around faith, and that holds certain beliefs on common. Those whose convictions are at odds with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ should remember that. At the very least, they should exercise great care in choosing what they share with their fellow Saints, lest they be deemed wolves in sheep's clothing. Quote So when these kids who are having enough of a struggle understanding who they are and how they might possibly fit not only in the church, but in life, I can understand and identify with their despair. I know exactly what that is like. I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old. I spent my entire adolescence and early adulthood trying to figure out what that meant for me. Your path is just that: your path. You've chosen one path; as you yourself have pointed out, Tom Christofferson has chosen another path. I don't think it's helpful for agitators to malign the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, or its members for the Church's teachings on chastity and marriage. As for despair, there are some (indeed, too many) who seek to capitalize on young people's confusion and despair regarding these and other issues to attempt to use such issues to drive a wedge between the Church of Jesus Christ and its young members. Quote Kenngo1969, I read your articles. and honestly you have it completely wrong. OK. You're #7,654,321,098,765, which means it's quite a long line: it extends through the door, out of the room, down the hall, out of the building, and over the horizon. I hope you brought an electronic device and/or something else to amuse yourself, because, with all of those people in front of you, it'll be awhile before I can get to you. Enjoy the wait! Quote I don't think you have ever really thought about what I have been posting on this site since 2008 OK. If that's your assessment, there's obviously not much I'm going to be able to say to talk you out of it. The only thing I can say is that "not really thinking" about someone's position is one thing: disagreeing with it is another. I admit that, on many things, I haven't found your logic so unassailable that I've had no choice but to agree with it, so if that means I "haven't really thought about" it, I suppose I'll simply have to plead guilty to that charge, as well. Quote I don't know whether the claims of the Mormon Church are true or not. On that, we differ. Quote My logical mind says probably not. 1 Corinthians 2:11. Quote My heart wants to believe it is true. Alma 32:27. Quote But for me, even if the Church is true, so what? Not only is there no place in the church for me in this life, there is no place for me in the Celestial Kingdom. Since all ordinances are only for those entering into the Celestial Kingdom, then whether the church has authority from God to perform these ordinances are of no value for me. So what is left that would draw me to the church? I'm confused: On the one hand, you castigate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for their alleged ostracism of you, while, on the other hand, you don't care if the Church of Jesus Christ is true. I'll readily admit that it's probably just my simple mind's inability to grasp your logic, but those two things do not easily reconcile. Quote I have no interest in the promises made for the Third Act. When that also gets taken off the table as something you are suppose to strive for, then what I do on earth has little consequence. And yes, I a completely ready for whatever judgement God issues towards me. I trust Him. Maybe I was born gay because God knew that the Celestial Kingdom was no place for me. The promises that are held to those that achieve that lofty goal are empty promises for me. And I am totally at peace with that. I cannot, of course, speak for him, but I suspect Tom Christofferson would disagree. In any event, as I have said so many times before, I don't know how God is going to justly, fairly, untangle the web that is human relationships (or lack thereof) in a way that is satisfactory to all parties who wish such satisfaction. (And gay relationships are only a relatively small part of that.) The only thing I am sure of is that God won't have to tell any of the faithful, "Look, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means that it sucks to be you , but ... sorry . This is the best I could do." Quote I am happy for Tom Christofferson If he has found happiness in the church then good for him. I am happy for any person gay or straight, who finds a place in the church. But his path is not my path. OK, but here again, I'm confused. You have castigated members of the Church of Jesus Christ for their supposed ostracism of you, but here you say that you've chosen to take a different path. Those two positions seem inconsistent. (You do not, of course, owe me an explanation: Human beings are such delightfully-if-maddeningly inconsistent creatures, after all.) Part of the reason I posted the links to the blog posts I linked above is to illustrate the point that I cannot necessarily quibble with someone whose faith journey takes him outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that was one of those things you said I am "completely wrong" about, so ... Quote And no, I don't care one bit what made me gay. Even those scriptures have zero meaning or importance for me. OK. Quote I get told over and over again that God gives us weakness to make us strong. You can quibble with that concept, and, of course, you have to decide how, if at all, the concept applies to you, but it is black-letter scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ: Ether 12:27. Quote The problem is, I don't think being gay is some kind of weakness. I can understand that. Quote I thank God for making me gay. I have learned so many valuable lessons from having this perspective. Perhaps Tom Christofferson could say the same thing, but, for him, the implications are vastly different. In any event, I wish you well. 1
california boy Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: That's unfortunate. I don't think anyone deserves to be ostracized, and I hope I haven't contributed to that. If I have, it's something I'll have to work on changing. All of us, myself included (perhaps especially so) could do a better job seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. You're right that I could do a better job of that. I'll work on it. I really appreciate your response to my post. I think it is the first time that I feel you are trying to understand what I have been saying for all of these years. Just saying that you will try and make an effort to try and understand what I have been saying is very helpful. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: To the extent that you oppose, publicly, the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps it is an apt descriptor. On the other hand, you're right to the extent that beliefs are something people have, not something they are. I'll have to do a better job remembering that. The dozens of times I have taken issue with the substance of things you have written notwithstanding, I don't know that I have ever maligned you personally. If I have, I apologize. The thing is, I haven't really opposed the teachings of the Church. I have said over and over again that I respect the right of the church to teach whatever it wants. There are many that find great value in the teachings of the Church. You obviously are one of them. Good for you. Most of my children are active the church. I encourage them to stay involved. The church works for them quite well. What I have consistently pointed out is that some of the policies of the Church have alienated not only a lot of gay members but many faithful members and the public in general. I have been quite vocal about the wisdom in the Church's involvement with Prop 8. I absolutely think it was wrong to politicize the teachings of the Church. Because in doing so, the church drew a line in the sand. The church took the position that a person's constitutional right (which had been established by the Supreme Court of California) can be put up for a popular vote because their view of marriage doesn't allow for marriage if you are gay. It crossed the line between church belief and a church working to take away a civil right. I, many other members of the church and many people outside the church strongly disagree with that kind of activism. Now, did the church have a right to take such action? Yes. Did it make it almost impossible for me and many others to continue membership in the church? Yes. Did it make it difficult for many to even be open to the teachings of the Church? I believe so. It is for those reasons that I have been vocal about the Church campaigning for Prop 8. That is a whole lot different than saying that the Church's teachings on gay marriage is wrong for it's members. Do you understand the difference? As far as my opposition to the October policy. that is a bit different. Once again, the church has every right to have any policy it wants for it's members. Do I think they are harsh and unnecessary? Yes. Do I think it further alienated those that are gay both within the church and without? Yes. This issue could have easily been handled on a case by case basis with a local leader. Instead I believe it is another line in the sand. And the strong statement it is making is, there is no room for anyone in a gay marriage or their children in the Church. Yeah that is not exactly the wording of the policy. But it is the perceived effect of the policy both from a gay persons perspective and many both within and outside the church. And THAT is what I have been saying about the October policy. I have also been very vocal about no longer believing and trusting that church leaders speak for God in all things. My history with church leaders forever changed how I view the claims of divine guidance in all that comes from the General Authorities. I don't think God was involved in any of these two actions by the church. But I have also stated that is only my opinion and I have stated the reasons for holding that opinion. Now you know the reasons for my opposition to these issues. You would be hard pressed to find any other teachings or policies that the Church holds that I have been publicly opposed to. Can you understand why I felt like it would be helpful to be a voice of one who has been so severely affected by these policies? Do you see me criticizing the church for building a mall? Or having ha huge stock portfolio? Or how much a general authority makes? Or the dozens of other criticizems that pop up here? You will find that I am quite silent on these issues. I am not anti-Mormon. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: I have no stewardship over you, so whether I believe there is a place for you in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is irrelevant. I certainly don't think anyone should be ostracized. To the extent that I have created an opposite impression, I apologize, and that's something I'll have to work on. That said, the Church of Jesus Christ is a community that coheres around faith, and that holds certain beliefs on common. Those whose convictions are at odds with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ should remember that. At the very least, they should exercise great care in choosing what they share with their fellow Saints, lest they be deemed wolves in sheep's clothing. Yes, of course. I fully accept that the church has every right to teach it's members anything they see fit. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Your path is just that: your path. You've chosen one path; as you yourself have pointed out, Tom Christofferson has chosen another path. I don't think it's helpful for agitators to malign the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, or its members for the Church's teachings on chastity and marriage. As for despair, there are some (indeed, too many) who seek to capitalize on young people's confusion and despair regarding these and other issues to attempt to use such issues to drive a wedge between the Church of Jesus Christ and its young members. And yes, I agree with you here. There are those who are gay that find a place in the church. But I think it is also fair to say that the vast majority of those that are gay can not find a place in the church for them. Just look up Affirmation.org as one example. I personally have met hundreds of former members of the church that are gay. Most have good memories of growing up in the church. But like me, they don't feel there is a place for them. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: OK. You're #7,654,321,098,765, which means it's quite a long line: it extends through the door, out of the room, down the hall, out of the building, and over the horizon. I hope you brought an electronic device and/or something else to amuse yourself, because, with all of those people in front of you, it'll be awhile before I can get to you. Enjoy the wait! Not sure what this means. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: OK. If that's your assessment, there's obviously not much I'm going to be able to say to talk you out of it. The only thing I can say is that "not really thinking" about someone's position is one thing: disagreeing with it is another. I admit that, on many things, I haven't found your logic so unassailable that I've had no choice but to agree with it, so if that means I "haven't really thought about" it, I suppose I'll simply have to plead guilty to that charge, as well. Is there some teaching in the church that allows someone who is attracted to the same sex to continue that attraction in the Celestial Kingdom? If I don't want to be married to a woman in the Celestial Kingdom, then what? What options does the church teach? My only conclusion is that there is another kingdom waiting for me. Do you see something different in my eternal future? And if I am not going to the Celestial Kingdom, then are any ordinances necessary for me? Does being involved in the church help me progress any further than what I am able to do without the church? That is my assessment. If you have a different point of view, I would love to hear it. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: On that, we differ. 1 Corinthians 2:11. Alma 32:27. I'm confused: On the one hand, you castigate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for their alleged ostracism of you, while, on the other hand, you don't care if the Church of Jesus Christ is true. I'll readily admit that it's probably just my simple mind's inability to grasp your logic, but those two things do not easily reconcile. I don't think castigate is the right word. I think that for the most part members treat gays the way the church teaches them to. Welcome them with open arms if they choose to be celibate. Dismiss any gay person who doesn't agree or fit that paradigm. Label them as apostates, but "love" them anyway. Yeah that love seems to be difficult for many to define. It took my family 13 years to figure out what that kind of "love" meant. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: I cannot, of course, speak for him, but I suspect Tom Christofferson would disagree. In any event, as I have said so many times before, I don't know how God is going to justly, fairly, untangle the web that is human relationships (or lack thereof) in a way that is satisfactory to all parties who wish such satisfaction. (And gay relationships are only a relatively small part of that.) The only thing I am sure of is that God won't have to tell any of the faithful, "Look, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means that it sucks to be you , but ... sorry . This is the best I could do." Like you, I trust God. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: OK, but here again, I'm confused. You have castigated members of the Church of Jesus Christ for their supposed ostracism of you, but here you say that you've chosen to take a different path. Those two positions seem inconsistent. (You do not, of course, owe me an explanation: Human beings are such delightfully-if-maddeningly inconsistent creatures, after all.) Part of the reason I posted the links to the blog posts I linked above is to illustrate the point that I cannot necessarily quibble with someone whose faith journey takes him outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that was one of those things you said I am "completely wrong" about, so ... OK. Once again, I think castigate is the wrong word. Do I feel welcome to attend church? No, not really. I think I have explained why. Would I appreciate not being called an anti-Mormon? Yes. Would I appreciate not being labeled as someone who opposes everything the Church stands for? Yes. Have there been some members on this board who have personally maligned me and automatically grouped me with with all gay activists? Absolutely. On a pretty regular basis. But it seems that those posters malign anyone who does not strictly support a very single point of view they hold about what the gospel is. I think you know what I am talking about. I am not the only one that gets labeled as being anti-Mormon if they say anything against a past or current policy. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: You can quibble with that concept, and, of course, you have to decide how, if at all, the concept applies to you, but it is black-letter scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ: Ether 12:27. I can understand that. Perhaps Tom Christofferson could say the same thing, but, for him, the implications are vastly different. In any event, I wish you well. I think you did not understand what I meant about the concept of God giving us weakness to make us strong. That is a concept that I fully believe. I just don't think me being gay is a weakness. So Ether 12:27 is not a scripture that applies to being gay for me. There is a lot of things that I need to work on changing. Being gay is not one of them. I will always be gay. God is not going to magically make me straight in the next life just so I can be like everyone else. If that was the goal, then it would be something that could change in this life as well. But it doesn't. We learn to live with it. We learn that it can be wonderful to be different. We add something different to society simply because of who we are. Diversity is what makes mankind evolve and change. We shouldn't all be exactly alike. That is not the nature of the creations of God. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 California Boy, I'm not overlooking your latest post to me, I've just been busy working overtime and in meetings on my days off . Rest assured that I've given serious thought to what you've written, and it deserves a better-considered response than the short time I would be able to devote to one, given other demands on my time of late (that's unusual for me: Normally, I find myself quite at loose ends on my days off and/or before and after work). Best regards, -Ken
smac97 Posted June 29, 2018 Posted June 29, 2018 Another interview with Dan Reynolds: Quote What does the church teach about homosexuality? The church doctrine teaches that marriage and sexual relationships should remain between a male and female. For those of us who didn’t grow up in the church, can you explain what are some positive teachings you have learned from Mormonism? I have three little girls, who are my whole world and I love the idea that I can be with them forever. I also love the service aspect of the religion. Why do you think the institution is slow in adjusting to current social issues? The LDS Church believes in modern revelation, which essentially means that the church leaders, specifically the Prophet, communicate with God who then lets them know how to run the church. So members of the church believe that even if they want to change doctrines, the doctrines are not theirs to change, that is for God to decide. This makes for a very slow progression on social issues within the church, but as we saw with Polygamy in the late 1800’s and again with race issues in 1978, the church eventually evolves and progresses into a more loving and accepting entity. Have you seen any progress in the church’s stance on same-sex relationships since the film was made? As you see in the film, the church endorsed the LoveLoud festival last year. But shortly after during the church’s General Conference, the church reconfirmed their stance on “same-sex relationships.” I do believe the film and festival have ignited conversations that will hopefully help foster safer communities for our youth. Huh. This is actually pretty fair and reasoned. I was particularly interested in his revised approach to the Church, which includes an acknowledgment of how the Church "believes in modern revelation," such that "members of the the church belive that even if they want to change doctrines, the doctrines are not theirs to change, that is for God to decide." Contrast that with this interview he gave in January: Quote Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough. He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex. I'm glad he's coming back around to having reasonable expectations. Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) On 6/29/2018 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said: Another interview with Dan Reynolds: Huh. This is actually pretty fair and reasoned. I was particularly interested in his revised approach to the Church, which includes an acknowledgment of how the Church "believes in modern revelation," such that "members of the the church belive that even if they want to change doctrines, the doctrines are not theirs to change, that is for God to decide." Contrast that with this interview he gave in January: I'm glad he's coming back around to having reasonable expectations. Thanks, -Smac I’m glad for that too, but the guy still seems to me to be something of a loose cannon. I would advise anyone not to look to pop entertainers for guidance on social or moral issues. Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Jeanne Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m glad for that too, but the guy still seems to me to be something of a loose cannon. I would advise anyone not to look to pop entertainers for guidance on social or moral issues. This is why I have issues with Gladys Knight..though I love some of her music.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 On 6/25/2018 at 2:21 AM, california boy said: I really appreciate your response to my post. I think it is the first time that I feel you are trying to understand what I have been saying for all of these years. Just saying that you will try and make an effort to try and understand what I have been saying is very helpful. Again, you're probably right that I can do a better job of seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. Thank you for the reminder. I'll work on it. Quote The thing is, I haven't really opposed the teachings of the Church. I have said over and over again that I respect the right of the church to teach whatever it wants. There are many that find great value in the teachings of the Church. You obviously are one of them. Good for you. Most of my children are active the church. I encourage them to stay involved. The church works for them quite well. It speaks well of you that you encourage your children's continued involvement in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notwithstanding your own disagreement with some of the Church's policies and teachings. Good for you. Quote What I have consistently pointed out is that some of the policies of the Church have alienated not only a lot of gay members but many faithful members and the public in general. I have been quite vocal about the wisdom in the Church's involvement with Prop 8. I absolutely think it was wrong to politicize the teachings of the Church. Because in doing so, the church drew a line in the sand. Perhaps we will disagree about who is drawing any particular line ("the Church" versus "the Savior"), but the same Lord who taught, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34) also taught, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 16:24), and "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Mark 16:25), and "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Mark 10:37). Quote The church took the position that a person's constitutional right (which had been established by the Supreme Court of California) can be put up for a popular vote because their view of marriage doesn't allow for marriage if you are gay. I don't know that the Church of Jesus Christ "took the position that a person's constitutional right ... can be put up for a popular vote" so much as it encouraged its members and others of like mind (from it's perspective, not from your perspective or from the perspective of someone who does not believe that, for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, gay marriage amounts to apostasy, that opposite-sex marriage is ordained of God, and that sex outside of marriage is wrong) to follow the counsel contained in Mosiah 29:26-27: Quote 26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. And the Supreme Court of California, august body though it may be, does not "establish" anyone's constitutional rights. Quote It crossed the line between church belief and a church working to take away a civil right. I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here: the question of the status of marriage as a civil right wasn't definitively settled until the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) so decided about two years ago. Quote I, many other members of the church and many people outside the church strongly disagree with that kind of activism. I know that you don't share this view, but there is a certain strain of thought that holds that people have a "right" to the "free exercise" of religion: They're "free" to "exercise" their religion as they wish ... within the walls of their holy place on their holy day. But, somehow, I doubt that the Framers' conception of the Free Exercise clause was quite so narrow. And it's not as though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was and is alone in its opposition to gay marriage. Quote Now, did the church have a right to take such action? Yes. Quite so. Quote Did it make it almost impossible for me and many others to continue membership in the church? Yes. Did it make it difficult for many to even be open to the teachings of the Church? I believe so. That's your decision ... and theirs. I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept. I wish you all well in your continuing faith journey. That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them. Consider these verses from John 6: Quote 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. And how did many of his listeners respond? Quote 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ... 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Quote It is for those reasons that I have been vocal about the Church campaigning for Prop 8. That is a whole lot different than saying that the Church's teachings on gay marriage is wrong for it's members. Do you understand the difference? Yes, I understand that you believe there is a difference. However (and I understand that you will disagree with this, and why), President Russell M. Nelson isn't simply a prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor are the Twelve Apostles and Counselors in the First Presidency Apostles to solely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: They have a ponderous, weighty, heavy responsibility to stand as witnesses of Christ and to declare truth to the whole world. Quote As far as my opposition to the October policy. that is a bit different. Once again, the church has every right to have any policy it wants for it's members. Do I think they are harsh and unnecessary? Yes. Do I think it further alienated those that are gay both within the church and without? Yes. This issue could have easily been handled on a case by case basis with a local leader. Instead I believe it is another line in the sand. I think there are several reasons good and sound why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the policies that any member who enters into a gay marriage is considered to be in apostasy and that any children reared in gay households must wait until age eighteen to be baptised and must affirm their commitment to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to chastity and marriage. They are too complicated to get into here, but suffice it to say that they forestall other potential attacks, possibly attacks that would be waged in a court of law, on the Church of Jesus Christ and on its teachings. I'll respond to the rest of your post at another time. Thanks. I know we are apt to disagree, but, honestly, I bear you no ill will. Indeed, I wish you well.
cacheman Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 On 6/13/2018 at 6:15 PM, kllindley said: Fair enough. My corrected comment would be as follows: "I have heard from two individuals that Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without their permission and edited it to misrepresent what they said, i.e. took comments out of context." Now that the documentary has been out, have these allegations been confirmed? I haven't seen the show.
Tacenda Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Again, you're probably right that I can do a better job of seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. Thank you for the reminder. I'll work on it. It speaks well of you that you encourage your children's continued involvement in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notwithstanding your own disagreement with some of the Church's policies and teachings. Good for you. Perhaps we will disagree about who is drawing any particular line ("the Church" versus "the Savior"), but the same Lord who taught, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34) also taught, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 16:24), and "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Mark 16:25), and "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Mark 10:37). I don't know that the Church of Jesus Christ "took the position that a person's constitutional right ... can be put up for a popular vote" so much as it encouraged its members and others of like mind (from it's perspective, not from your perspective or from the perspective of someone who does not believe that, for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, gay marriage amounts to apostasy, that opposite-sex marriage is ordained of God, and that sex outside of marriage is wrong) to follow the counsel contained in Mosiah 29:26-27: And the Supreme Court of California, august body though it may be, does not "establish" anyone's constitutional rights. I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here: the question of the status of marriage as a civil right wasn't definitively settled until the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) so decided about two years ago. I know that you don't share this view, but there is a certain strain of thought that holds that people have a "right" to the "free exercise" of religion: They're "free" to "exercise" their religion as they wish ... within the walls of their holy place on their holy day. But, somehow, I doubt that the Framers' conception of the Free Exercise clause was quite so narrow. And it's not as though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was and is alone in its opposition to gay marriage. Quite so. That's your decision ... and theirs. I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept. I wish you all well in your continuing faith journey. That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them. Consider these verses from John 6: And how did many of his listeners respond? Yes, I understand that you believe there is a difference. However (and I understand that you will disagree with this, and why), President Russell M. Nelson isn't simply a prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor are the Twelve Apostles and Counselors in the First Presidency Apostles to solely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: They have a ponderous, weighty, heavy responsibility to stand as witnesses of Christ and to declare truth to the whole world. I think there are several reasons good and sound why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the policies that any member who enters into a gay marriage is considered to be in apostasy and that any children reared in gay households must wait until age eighteen to be baptised and must affirm their commitment to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to chastity and marriage. They are too complicated to get into here, but suffice it to say that they forestall other potential attacks, possibly attacks that would be waged in a court of law, on the Church of Jesus Christ and on its teachings. I'll respond to the rest of your post at another time. Thanks. I know we are apt to disagree, but, honestly, I bear you no ill will. Indeed, I wish you well. bold mine When the church labels anyone an apostate, that is a red flag to me that it isn't using Christ's love as a goal, but ostracising people out of an organization. Edited July 2, 2018 by Tacenda
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: bold mine When the church labels anyone an apostate, that is a red flag to me that it isn't using Christ's love as a goal, but ostracising people out of an organization. Consider Christ’s words in Matthew 5:29. You may disagree with Christ here, but there’s no question He said it.
jkwilliams Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Consider Christ’s words in Matthew 5:29. You may disagree with Christ here, but there’s no question He said it. I always thought he was talking about self-control in the face of temptation, as it's part of his discussion on lust and adultery. What leads you to believe he's talking about excommunication? Just curious.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I always thought he was talking about self-control in the face of temptation, as it's part of his discussion on lust and adultery. What leads you to believe he's talking about excommunication? Just curious. The metaphor of the Church as a body, the bride of Christ. See the cross reference Matthew 18:6-9, where the context is offending “these little ones.” The Greek word translated as “offend” means “cause to stumble.” Thus, the Church leaders allow great leeway in one’s personal belief in false doctrine, but they frown on persuading others to embrace it. Edited July 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: The metaphor of the Church as a body, the bride of Christ. I think that comes later, from the epistles of Paul.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I think that comes later, from the epistles of Paul. I think it applies, notwithstanding. The context in the cross reference I gave (Matthew 18:6-9) fits my application better. And there are enough allusions to.excommunication in the Bookof Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants for me to reject the notion that it is contrary to the teachings of Christ.
Tacenda Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The metaphor of the Church as a body, the bride of Christ. See the cross reference Matthew 18:6-9, where the context is offending “these little ones.” The Greek word translated as “offend” means “cause to stumble.” Thus, the Church leaders allow great leeway in one’s personal belief in false doctrine, but they frown on persuading others to embrace it. How are they persuading others to embrace their homosexuality? I've seen the opposite IMO. It's just those surrounding them that empathize with them. I guess I got upset when seeing that they get ex'ed for marrying who they love, and become apostates without even saying a word about the church. And it may be because I had raw feelings after reading and listening to how the Scientologists are treated and didn't want our church to do anything like it.
jkwilliams Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think it applies, notwithstanding. The context in the cross reference I gave (Matthew 18:6-9) fits my application better. And there are enough allusions to.excommunication in the Bookof Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants for me to reject the notion that it is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Sure, but you were suggesting that Jesus’ words authorized excommunication. I’d say that’s true if you read into them other scripture that came later.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Sure, but you were suggesting that Jesus’ words authorized excommunication. I’d say that’s true if you read into them other scripture that came later. In the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, they do clearly authorize it — command it when necessary. Since I believe scripture comes from God, I view scripture as being integrated and a given passage to be read in light of other passages. This should come as no shock to you, but if it bothers you, I suppose we’ll just have to chalk it up to differing world views. Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: In the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, they do clearly authorize it — command it when necessary. Since I believe scripture comes from God, I view scripture as being integrated and a given passage to be read in light of other passages. This should come as no shock to you, but if it bothers you, I suppose just have to chalk it up to differing world views. No, I’m just saying your “Jesus said so” answer wasn’t right, at least not the way you presented it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: How are they persuading others to embrace their homosexuality? I've seen the opposite IMO. It's just those surrounding them that empathize with them. I guess I got upset when seeing that they get ex'ed for marrying who they love, and become apostates without even saying a word about the church. And it may be because I had raw feelings after reading and listening to how the Scientologists are treated and didn't want our church to do anything like it. When I said people are allowed leeway in their beliefs, I didn’t mean by that that they could expect to violate with impunity the laws of God that have been clearly spelled out. That’s a matter of behavior, not mere belief. And I don’t know much about Scientology, so I don’t get that comparison, but I don’t see excommunication in the Church of Jesus Christ as being cruel, if that’s what you’re implying. Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: No, I’m just saying your “Jesus said so” answer wasn’t right, at least not the way you presented it. And I’m saying it was right when viewed in light of other scripture.
jkwilliams Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: And I’m saying it was right when viewed in light of other scripture. Doesn’t excuse the “you got a problem with Jesus?” attitude.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Doesn’t excuse the “you got a problem with Jesus?” attitude. Sorry it bugs you, but I stand by my application of scripture. When somebody asserts that Jesus would not approve of something His Church does, I’m going to feel free to search the scriptures to ascertain what He has said on the matter. Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sorry it bugs you, but I stand by my application of scripture. When somebody asserts that Jesus would not approve of something His Church does, I’m going to feel free to search the scriptures to ascertain what He has said on the matter. And you quoted something that isn’t Jesus directly approving of that something the church does.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: And you quoted something that isn’t Jesus directly approving of that something the church does. And I say it is. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m entitled to mine. Do I need to cite the several scriptures in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants on this subject? Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: You’re entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Sure, only I’m right. 😂
Recommended Posts