Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[Teancum]

On 12/2/2017 at 8:16 PM, smac97 said:

No, it hasn't.  Not in any meaningful, substantive sense.

No, it hasn't.

So all those biblical references to divine commandments about sexual ethics are . . . "a man ma{de} construct?"

Thanks,

-Smac

1:  Yes it has in very meaningful ways.

2: Yes it has.

3:  Yes the Bible is full of man made constructs that were not constant and changed as wel..

You are welcome.

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ahh....

So ever changing and never constant.

Noting that a question has been asked and answered multiple times does not lead to your conclusion.

The Law of Chastity as explained in the  Proclamation on the Family is consistent with the Law of Chastity as defined by God in the Garden of Eden, by Jesus during his ministry, and as best explained in Jacob 2.

Quote

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Quote

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

On 12/13/2017 at 2:06 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Well it seems to me the Law of Chastity has changed for expediency issues...ie, polgymay and polyandry. 

No, it hasn't.  Not in any meaningful, substantive sense.

1:  Yes it has in very meaningful ways.

No, it hasn't.  (Golly, this is easy!)

Quote

Quote

Quote

It has been a moving target.

No, it hasn't.

2: Yes it has.

No, it hasn't.

Sex between a husband and wife is acceptable.  Otherwise, sexual behavior is wrong.

Since the Law of Chastity essentially calls for a "closed set" of circumstances where sex is allowed, it becomes fairly easy to understand that anything outside that closed set is prohibited.

Adultery has never been acceptable.

Fornication has never been acceptable.

Same-sex behavior has never been acceptable.

Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon, and in living prophets and apostles.  So the Law of Chastity may need clarification here and there, as evidenced by changes in society.  So when society radically alters the definition and character of marriage to include same-sex relationships, we have prophets and apostles available to provide updated information to address that innovation.  That's not a meaningful or substantive change.  It is just the adaption and application of the Law of Chastity to new situations.

Pornography was, perhaps, not a widespread problem in ancient Israel, or in 19th century frontier America.  Now, however, it is a problem, and hence is frequently addressed by prophets and apostles.  Again, nothing has "changed."  There's no "moving target."  The Brethren have simply provided an updated application of the Law of Chastity to this phenomenon.

We appear to be headed into a world with "sexbots" (anthropomorphic robot sex dolls).  Again, this sort of thing was not a problem in prior generations.  It may become a problem for people in our day, such that prophetic guidance may be appropriate and necessary.  But again, there's nothing that has "changed" in any substantive sense.  Just updated and adapted.

Quote

Quote

Quote

And it has seemed to benefit those in power. 

This is why I view it as a man man construct. 

So all those biblical references to divine commandments about sexual ethics are . . . "a man ma{de} construct?"

3:  Yes the Bible is full of man made constructs that were not constant and changed as wel..

Hmm.  So do you differentiate at all?  Is the Bible an altogether "man-made construct?"  Or do you believe that portions of it are revelatory/inspired?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2017 by smac97

[Guest]

On November 30, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Daniel2 said:

Well... it looks like Dan Reynold’s days as a member of the LDS Church are numbered...

I realize most conservative members will adamantly disagree with his conclusions about members driving change, but whether or not you agree with him, Reynold’s seems to be representing a cultural wave that the church will have difficultly holding back as the older generation passes and the younger ranks assume leaderships positions. As many of us have said repeatedly, for the younger generation, attitudes about LGBT acceptance seems to be mirroring interracial acceptance of the current/previous adult generations.

On a movie nerd note: I’m still stunned he got the likes of Hans Zimmer to score his film. Wow!!!

Daniel, I have heard such comments concerning older members or older voters dying off, and then we will have a better Church or a better America, or a better world. As it relates to the liberal side, when "older white people" pass away, it will lead to a better world, for religion, our country, or our world, for "climate change", "Gay marriage", "gun laws", "public office holders", and so on. It seems that those whose lives center around only one issue, seek or hope for this more than any other. They live lives that have almost no center, nor well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue and little else. I fear for those who fit this definition, as they will miss so much of what life can offer. They fail to see the beauty that others can see, because of the blinders that they never knew they have. This because of the many others who have enticed them to wear such blinders, which limit their vision to the many wonders, and endless beauty that a well rounded life offers. So I ask; why are his days in the Church "numbered"?, (and) Why do so many look forward to a day when our older members, or older men and women are dead and gone? I understand that you would recoil at this idea, as most would, but this is the message that is being sent in almost every quarter, and well received by those of us, who are considered older. Such threads or comments are heartbreaking to us all. But maybe that is the message's point. 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Daniel, I have heard such comments concerning older members or older voters dying off, and then we will have a better Church or a better America, or a better world. As it relates to the liberal side, when "older white people" pass away, it will lead to a better world, for religion, our country, or our world, for "climate change", "Gay marriage", "gun laws", "public office holders", and so on. It seems that those whose lives center around only one issue, seek or hope for this more than any other. They live lives that have almost no center, nor well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue and little else. I fear for those who fit this definition, as they will miss so much of what life can offer. They fail to see the beauty that others can see, because of the blinders that they never knew they have. This because of the many others who have enticed them to wear such blinders, which limit their vision to the many wonders, and endless beauty that a well rounded life offers. So I ask; why are his days in the Church "numbered"?, (and) Why do so many look forward to a day when our older members, or older men and women are dead and gone? I understand that you would recoil at this idea, as most would, but this is the message that is being sent in almost every quarter, and well received by those of us, who are considered older. Such threads or comments are heartbreaking to us all. But maybe that is the message's point. 

 

Do you really actually know a lot of people that live their lives around one issue?  Or are you just guessing that their lives are that way because that is the only side of their lives you see.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you really actually know a lot of people that live their lives around one issue?  Or are you just guessing that their lives are that way because that is the only side of their lives you see.

Yes when it comes to certain issues, "abortion", "the State of Israel", "Gay Marriage", an more. It may be a possibility that this is only the side they show, but it is certainly not the only side this "old conservative" is looking for. But what is clear is how many in when it comes to Church leadership, engage in a death watch, in hopes that a younger, more liberal type of Apostle or Prophet will rise up and change those "single issues", I and others speak of, as I have mentioned in my last post. This very thread speaks of someone who's day are numbered, meaning he will leave over this "one" issue, or be run out of the Church. It then goes on to mention the old men who run it, and the "wondering", if not "longing" for younger leaders who can undo the work of the older. 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Daniel, I have heard such comments concerning older members or older voters dying off, and then we will have a better Church or a better America, or a better world. As it relates to the liberal side, when "older white people" pass away, it will lead to a better world, for religion, our country, or our world, for "climate change", "Gay marriage", "gun laws", "public office holders", and so on. It seems that those whose lives center around only one issue, seek or hope for this more than any other. They live lives that have almost no center, nor well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue and little else. I fear for those who fit this definition, as they will miss so much of what life can offer. They fail to see the beauty that others can see, because of the blinders that they never knew they have. This because of the many others who have enticed them to wear such blinders, which limit their vision to the many wonders, and endless beauty that a well rounded life offers. So I ask; why are his days in the Church "numbered"?, (and) Why do so many look forward to a day when our older members, or older men and women are dead and gone? I understand that you would recoil at this idea, as most would, but this is the message that is being sent in almost every quarter, and well received by those of us, who are considered older. Such threads or comments are heartbreaking to us all. But maybe that is the message's point. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Yes when it comes to certain issues, "abortion", "the State of Israel", "Gay Marriage", an more. It may be a possibility that this is only the side they show, but it is certainly not the only side this "old conservative" is looking for. But what is clear is how many in when it comes to Church leadership, engage in a death watch, in hopes that a younger, more liberal type of Apostle or Prophet will rise up and change those "single issues", I and others speak of, as I have mentioned in my last post. This very thread speaks of someone who's day are numbered, meaning he will leave over this "one" issue, or be run out of the Church. It then goes on to mention the old men who run it, and the "wondering", if not "longing" for younger leaders who can undo the work of the older. 

 

Hi, Papa,

I'm fairly certain that I've never said that as the older generation "dies off, we'll have a better church, America, or World."  While I agree that on certain topics/issues, there are generational cultural biases that will change as successive generations replace previous ones, that doesn't mean I don't find value in the older generation or that I don't appreciate the gifts they can offer to those in the younger generation, as well.  Nothing is so black and white as to make the kind to sweeping overgeneralizations that says that "once older members/voters die off, then we'll have a better church/America/world," and I don't agree with such a broad overgeneralization.  I love and value the now-senior-citizens in my family and community as much as anyone else does, and I am conscious that someday, I will also join the ranks of the AARP.

Few people I know or am aware of center their lives around only one issue, aside from those who enter a monastic existence (which are relatively few and far between, these days). 

Most people I've seen can and sometimes do choose to devote time and energy to a central issue while undertaking a certain mission and/or acting within a specified role.  For example, this is true of Mormons when they serve as missionaries or those acting within certain their callings.  While it may seem to some outsides (who only observe said individuals actions as related to their central mission/goal) that said individuals "lives center around only one issue," the reality is that they're only observing one facet of such individuals.  When not acting as missionaries, as posters on LDS-themed message boards, or within their church callings, LDS members can and do devote time, talents, and energies to a wealth of other secular topics, including family, friends, community, and personal goals and/or pursuits.

And while some outsiders may suggest said LDS missionaries' "lives have almost no center, nor well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue and little else," or if they "fear that they [LDS missionaries] will miss so much of life has to offer," or accuse them of "failing to see the beauty that others see," because they believe such LDS missionaries "have been enticed to wear blinders that they never knew they had and that limit their vision to the many wonders and endless beauty that a well rounded life offers," those of us who have a broader understanding of Mormons know that missions and subsequent missionary work, service, or other church callings are only one part of Mormons' identity and life. 

The above is also true of those of us that know that most gays' and lesbians' lives are the same way.

I suggested that Dan Reynolds' days in the church seem to be numbered because he's openly and publically criticizing LDS leaders' current stance on LGBT issues, and recent events show that individuals displaying such behaviors ultimately lead to disciplinary counsels where they are excommunicated, or said individuals ultimately choose to resign from the church itself.  Do you feel that such behaviors don't often/frequently lead to those two outcomes?

I understand your comment may not have been directed at me, but just to clarify, I don't feel I'm engaging in any type of "death watch," even though I believe rising/future generations will change this issue.  As I've said, even when the church changes on this issue, I don't believe it's very likely I will ever return to the LDS Church, and I'm not holding my breath for anything to happen.  That being said, one person's "undoing the work of the older" may viewed by others to be "finally extended the blessings to all," instead of "undoing" anything.  As I've said before, a revelation allowing for marriage between same-sex couples need not repudiate anything in The Proclamation to the Family.  That proclamation could remain in it's entirety, with some additional addendums about God's plan for his children who remain gay or lesbian in the eternities and don't fit the model advanced for the heterosexual majority of God's children as described in the Proclamation.

Best to you,

D

 

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Hi, Papa,

I'm fairly certain that I've never said that as the older generation "dies off, we'll have a better church, America, or World."  While I agree that on certain topics/issues, there are generational cultural biases that will change as successive generations replace previous ones, that doesn't mean I don't find value in the older generation or that I don't appreciate the gifts they can offer to those in the younger generation, as well.  Nothing is so black and white as to make the kind to sweeping overgeneralizations that says that "once older members/voters die off, then we'll have a better church/America/world," and I don't agree with such a broad overgeneralization.  I love and value the now-senior-citizens in my family and community as much as anyone else does, and I am conscious that someday, I will also join the ranks of the AARP.

Few people I know or am aware of center their lives around only one issue, aside from those who enter a monastic existence (which are relatively few and far between, these days). 

Most people I've seen can and sometimes do choose to devote time and energy to a central issue while undertaking a certain mission and/or acting within a specified role.  For example, this is true of Mormons when they  serve as missionaries or those acting within certain issues relating to their callings.  While it may seem to some outside their callings, (who only observe said individuals actions as related to their central mission/goal) that said individuals "lives center around only one issue," the reality is that they're only observing one facet of such individuals.  When not acting as missionaries, as posters on LDS-themed message boards like this one, or within their church callings, LDS members can and do devote their, time, talents, and efforts to a wealth of other secular topics, including family, friends, community, and personal goals and/or pursuits.

And while some outsiders may suggest that said LDS missionaries' "lives have only one center, is they are well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue which is helping others see that world, and the world to come, and little else,. And all that life has to offer," in the here and hereafter has to offer. So to accuse them of "failing to see the beauty that others see," because they believe that LDS missionaries "have been enticed to wear blinder, or others to do so, is harsh and inaccurate. They live well rounded lives of service. They do not have limited vision, and most come fr"fullness of the Gospelom well rounded families, fully aware of the many wonders and endless beauty the world offers, Those of who know and understand (or take the time too) understand the "Fulness if the Gospel", see all that the beauty that the world has to offer. As well as all of the truth

The above is also true of those of us that know that most gays' and lesbians' lives are the same way.

I suggested that Dan Reynolds' days in the church seem to be numbered because he's openly and publically criticizing LDS leaders' current stance on LGBT issues, and recent events show that individuals displaying such behaviors ultimately lead to disciplinary counsels where they are excommunicated,

 

 

A few things Daniell, indeed members sometimes face actions when they openly oppose, Church doctrine, or Church Leadership, just as in the the early Church and beyond. No matter the issue, not just because of the issue related to "Gay Marriage", but due to a host of issues. Although, so many want it to believe this, as it affects them personally. Also, I believe you were once a missionary, so were  you there to lead investigators to wear blinders? Which by the way, it is a very insulating suggestion to those who serve. Also, many (only care about on issue ) on both sides of the isle, speaking politically. Thiere are many who care nothing for a candidate, only if they support abortion, or oppose it. Others if they support Gay Marriage, or oppose it. There are many who wish to deny this, but I know many who only care about "social issues" and nothing more, I also know of many candidates who only run on social issues, with maybe on other issue, of immigration issues.

I wrote much more which took a lot of time, and nowI cannot find it. Forgive any errors, that might show up. I m suffering from issues that make it very difficult to post. Not sure if it is early Alhiemers, or others issues. I may need to just say goodbye, it is doubtful I will be missed. I was in the process of making corrections, and my many paragraphs just disappeared. So when I hit submit, they may show up with no corrections, making me seem more pathetic. So forgive repeat comments or ramblings. If this continues, for the sake of the board, I may need to go away for good.so, I apologize for any errors. If it comes to this, I will miss you all.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

A few things Daniell, indeed members sometimes face actions when they openly oppose, Church doctrine, or Church Leadership, just as in the the early Church and beyond. No matter the issue, not just because of the issue related to "Gay Marriage", but due to a host of issues. Although, so many want it to believe this, as it affects them personally. Also, I believe you were once a missionary, so were  you there to lead investigators to wear blinders? Which by the way, it is a very insulating suggestion to those who serve. Also, many (only care about on issue ) on both sides of the isle, speaking politically. Thiere are many who care nothing for a candidate, only if they support abortion, or oppose it. Others if they support Gay Marriage, or oppose it. There are many who wish to deny this, but I know many who only care about "social issues" and nothing more, I also know of many candidates who only run on social issues, with maybe on other issue, of immigration issues.

I wrote much more which took a lot of time, and nowI cannot find it. Forgive any errors, that might show up. I m suffering from issues that make it very difficult to post. Not sure if it is early Alhiemers, or others issues. I may need to just say goodbye, it is doubtful I will be missed. I was in the process of making corrections, and my many paragraphs just disappeared. So when I hit submit, they may show up with no corrections, making me seem more pathetic. So forgive repeat comments or ramblings. If this continues, for the sake of the board, I may need to go away for good.so, I apologize for any errors. If it comes to this, I will miss you all.

Hi, Papa,

I'm so sorry to hear about your health challenges.  I hope you will be able to stay and continue to contribute for as long as possible, and I also hope your loved ones are taking good care of you.

I recently learned something that has really helped when I accidentally delete a post I've been working hard on--if you hit the "Control" key plus the "Z" key at the same time, it will "undo" the last key you accidentally hit and bring it all back.  Hope that works for you going forward!

I think you may have misunderstood my point about LDS missionaries.  My point was that others who don't share Mormon's values or have a good understanding of LDS culture may inaccurately judge that Mormons' lives are focused solely on one issue, because they're only witnessing one facet of a Latter-day Saints' lives.  In similar fashion, you may perceive that many/most gays and lesbians are fixated on one issue; in my experience, that simply isn't true.  And while that's what I focus on on this board, that focus isn't reflective of the rest of my life.

I agree that it's insulting to suggest that people are living in such a way that they "wear blinders."  However, I was only mirroring your words, which it sounded to me like you were suggesting is true of gays and lesbians.  As it's true that it's insulting to suggest that is true of LDS missionaries, it's also true that it's insulting to suggest that's true of gays and lesbians.

Support for marriage equality for same-sex couples was a defining issue for me for the last decade when it came to politics, mainly because the benefits, responsibilities, and protections marriage provides is a vitally important issue in how my husband and I protect, provide, and care for one another and our children and grandchildren; if I had to use an analogy, the liberties and protections provided by civil marriage for same-sex couples like mine was just as important to us as the Standard of Liberty was for Captain Moroni and his followers.  That being said, marriage equality wasn't the only issue I cared about then, and it isn't the only one I care about now.  Each candidate should be weighed on their own merits, and according to the values of each individual voter.

Again, I am sorry to hear about your struggles, and I wish you health, happiness, peace, and ongoing participation here at MD&D.

Best,

D

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Yes when it comes to certain issues, "abortion", "the State of Israel", "Gay Marriage", an more. It may be a possibility that this is only the side they show, but it is certainly not the only side this "old conservative" is looking for. But what is clear is how many in when it comes to Church leadership, engage in a death watch, in hopes that a younger, more liberal type of Apostle or Prophet will rise up and change those "single issues", I and others speak of, as I have mentioned in my last post. This very thread speaks of someone who's day are numbered, meaning he will leave over this "one" issue, or be run out of the Church. It then goes on to mention the old men who run it, and the "wondering", if not "longing" for younger leaders who can undo the work of the older. 

 

I am sorry you see people in only one dimension.  You reminded me of something that happened when I was serving my mission.  We were living at a YMCA in downtown Auckland.  We didn't interact much with the other residents since we were out most of the time or studying.  But we did have dinner with everyone in the dining hall in the evenings.  There was a pool table just outside the dining room.  One evening, dinner was a little late, and I was sitting in a chair reading the scriptures.  One of the younger guys started talking to me, asking me if I ever did anything besides study scriptures and pray.  He challenged me to a game of pool, thinking that he was luring me into outer darkness.  I took him up on the challenge and ran the table.  He was shocked.  This 19 yr old in white shirt and tie cleaned his clock at pool.  (What he didn't know is that we had a pool table in our family room growing up. so I knew my way around a pool table.)

This guy could only see me as a Mormon missionary.  He never even considered that there was much more to my life than a name tag and a white shirt.  While I am passionate about LGBT issues on this board, it is virtually the only place that I participate or do any kind of interaction on this issue in my life.  Maybe some day we can sit down to dinner together, and I can introduce you to the rest of my life.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

A few things Daniell, indeed members sometimes face actions when they openly oppose, Church doctrine, or Church Leadership, just as in the the early Church and beyond. No matter the issue, not just because of the issue related to "Gay Marriage", but due to a host of issues. Although, so many want it to believe this, as it affects them personally. Also, I believe you were once a missionary, so were  you there to lead investigators to wear blinders? Which by the way, it is a very insulating suggestion to those who serve. Also, many (only care about on issue ) on both sides of the isle, speaking politically. Thiere are many who care nothing for a candidate, only if they support abortion, or oppose it. Others if they support Gay Marriage, or oppose it. There are many who wish to deny this, but I know many who only care about "social issues" and nothing more, I also know of many candidates who only run on social issues, with maybe on other issue, of immigration issues.

I wrote much more which took a lot of time, and nowI cannot find it. Forgive any errors, that might show up. I m suffering from issues that make it very difficult to post. Not sure if it is early Alhiemers, or others issues. I may need to just say goodbye, it is doubtful I will be missed. I was in the process of making corrections, and my many paragraphs just disappeared. So when I hit submit, they may show up with no corrections, making me seem more pathetic. So forgive repeat comments or ramblings. If this continues, for the sake of the board, I may need to go away for good.so, I apologize for any errors. If it comes to this, I will miss you all.

Don't even think about going away Papa...I have saved the beautiful poems you have written...your love  for others speaks volumes no matter which side of coin we are on...I hope you will find some solace here in all your ills ...you are not just a member of the board, you are family.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sorry you see people in only one dimension.  

Great story, but let me assure you, I do not see people in only "one dimension". I see what so many wish to project. Despite my many interactions with so many, far too many wish to discuss only one topic in our conversations depending on the individual, "from that individual", which depending on who it is. Be it "abortion", Gay Marraige" (which when I mention my daughter, I am no longer welcome, unless I wish to hear how she is going to Hell), "immigration " or so on. My guess is that like a missionary, they are seeking converts. Not to mention, those from other Faith's who are consumed with "Grace" and seeking to tell me I am going to Hell. They pass judgement upon me, without truly knowing me, just as your opening comment sought to do. I am saddened that after all the conversations we have had, that you feel you have the moral superiority to also pass judgement upon me. I am saddened that for many the one do only "key" they wish to bang on the piano remains constant,  despite the many other "keys" are available to make beautiful music, and not only noise.. Your opening line (once again to make the point) suggests that you feel you are qualified to pass judgement, and put me in the small box, that somehow you believe I am trying to do. I am trying and hoping to let others out of the box, that their actions and comments are placing them in, without them knowing. So "CA", if it helps you understand me as you wish too, keep pushing until you can understand me, and my comments. But I will continue to fight anyone's efforts to do so. Again despite the many edits and time, forgive any errors, Please. I still consider you my brother, as my brothers always did, and at times still do, they to define me and box me in....after all, I am the youngest, so it would see it is my lot in life. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Papa,

I'm so sorry to hear about your health challenges.  I hope you will be able to stay and continue to contribute for as long as possible, and I also hope your loved ones are taking good care of you.

I recently learned something that has really helped when I accidentally delete a post I've been working hard on--if you hit the "Control" key plus the "Z" key at the same time, it will "undo" the last key you accidentally hit and bring it all back.  Hope that works for you going forward!

I think you may have misunderstood my point about LDS missionaries.  My point was that others who don't share Mormon's values or have a good understanding of LDS culture may inaccurately judge that Mormons' lives are focused solely on one issue, because they're only witnessing one facet of a Latter-day Saints' lives.  In similar fashion, you may perceive that many/most gays and lesbians are fixated on one issue; in my experience, that simply isn't true.  And while that's what I focus on on this board, that focus isn't reflective of the rest of my life.

I agree that it's insulting to suggest that people are living in such a way that they "wear blinders."  However, I was only mirroring your words, which it sounded to me like you were suggesting is true of gays and lesbians.  As it's true that it's insulting to suggest that is true of LDS missionaries, it's also true that it's insulting to suggest that's true of gays and lesbians.

Support for marriage equality for same-sex couples was a defining issue for me for the last decade when it came to politics, mainly because the benefits, responsibilities, and protections marriage provides is a vitally important issue in how my husband and I protect, provide, and care for one another and our children and grandchildren; if I had to use an analogy, the liberties and protections provided by civil marriage for same-sex couples like mine was just as important to us as the Standard of Liberty was for Captain Moroni and his followers.  That being said, marriage equality wasn't the only issue I cared about then, and it isn't the only one I care about now.  Each candidate should be weighed on their own merits, and according to the values of each individual voter.

Again, I am sorry to hear about your struggles, and I wish you health, happiness, peace, and ongoing participation here at MD&D.

Best,

D

I don't want to get into a debate about how the mention of blinders began. But, why not engage in other discussions about the Church. I assume your children and step-children are Mormons, and I hope active members. If so you have a stake (as in an interested in our Faith, or to use a Southern term, "you have a dog in this fight"). As for finding or restoring lost comments, everything and ever thread or post I do is on an IPad, resting on my legs. Due to my back injury, I cannot sit at a table or keyboard without great pain. So this adds to difficulties with typing, and length of content. Everything I post, not only do I struggle with (whatever is going on with memory or my mind) comes with the added issue of an iPad on my legs, with those legs in the air with my knees raised. This coupled with my left thumb holding the iPad up on my legs, which only allows for three to four fingers to type everything. I use two fingers on my right hand, and only two on my left hand. This is all I can do, which is a marvel I can type what I do. Only two times in the last five years have I sat at the table to write a very long post, for something that I felt needed a lot of text. This explains a lot of shorter posts, and copious misspellings. 

[Calm]

If you haven't already, PaPa, you should look at IPad holders.  I have one that clips on to my headboard so I don't have to hold it and I can move it around to get in just the right position.  There are some that are like lapdesks that have a little ledge so you could rest it against your legs without having to hold it.  If the ledge is too low, a couple of heavy duty rubber bands might hold it steady or maybe a taped on ruler or something else that forms a ledge just where you need it might free up a hand.  Thick piece of cardboard covered in felt could be customized just the right size for you.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Great story, but let me assure you, I do not see people in only "one dimension". I see what so many wish to project. Despite my many interactions with so many, far too many wish to discuss only one topic in our conversations depending on the individual, "from that individual", which depending on who it is. Be it "abortion", Gay Marraige" (which when I mention my daughter, I am no longer welcome, unless I wish to hear how she is going to Hell), "immigration " or so on. My guess is that like a missionary, they are seeking converts. Not to mention, those from other Faith's who are consumed with "Grace" and seeking to tell me I am going to Hell. They pass judgement upon me, without truly knowing me, just as your opening comment sought to do. I am saddened that after all the conversations we have had, that you feel you have the moral superiority to also pass judgement upon me. I am saddened that for many the one do only "key" they wish to bang on the piano remains constant,  despite the many other "keys" are available to make beautiful music, and not only noise.. Your opening line (once again to make the point) suggests that you feel you are qualified to pass judgement, and put me in the small box, that somehow you believe I am trying to do. I am trying and hoping to let others out of the box, that their actions and comments are placing them in, without them knowing. So "CA", if it helps you understand me as you wish too, keep pushing until you can understand me, and my comments. But I will continue to fight anyone's efforts to do so. Again despite the many edits and time, forgive any errors, Please. I still consider you my brother, as my brothers always did, and at times still do, they to define me and box me in....after all, I am the youngest, so it would see it is my lot in life. 

I am sure the misunderstanding is my fault.  I clearly did not understand the issue you are having.  I am still a bit confused with how you are characterizing others. Is it that these people you are referring to only want to talk about one issue.  Or that they only have one issue in their lives they care about?  I am a little confused where you are going with this.  I still probably am misunderstanding you.

You know i think you are really a sweet person.  The last thing I want to do is offend you.  If I have, I apologize.,

Edited December 15, 2017 by california boy

[Guest]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I am sure the misunderstanding is my fault.  I clearly did not understand the issue you are having.  I am still a bit confused with how you are characterizing others. Is it that these people you are referring to only want to talk about one issue.  Or that they only have one issue in their lives they care about?  I am a little confused where you are going with this.  I still probably am misunderstanding you.

You know i think you are really a sweet person.  The last thing I want to do is offend you.  If I have, I apologize.,

Thank you, but I think it best I take a break and limit most of my comments to a single sentence or two.. It will make it much easer to make corrections and edits. 

[Teancum]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:13 PM, smac97 said:

No, it hasn't.  (Golly, this is easy!)

No, it hasn't.

Sex between a husband and wife is acceptable.  Otherwise, sexual behavior is wrong.

Since the Law of Chastity essentially calls for a "closed set" of circumstances where sex is allowed, it becomes fairly easy to understand that anything outside that closed set is prohibited.

Adultery has never been acceptable.

Fornication has never been acceptable.

Same-sex behavior has never been acceptable.

Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon, and in living prophets and apostles.  So the Law of Chastity may need clarification here and there, as evidenced by changes in society.  So when society radically alters the definition and character of marriage to include same-sex relationships, we have prophets and apostles available to provide updated information to address that innovation.  That's not a meaningful or substantive change.  It is just the adaption and application of the Law of Chastity to new situations.

Pornography was, perhaps, not a widespread problem in ancient Israel, or in 19th century frontier America.  Now, however, it is a problem, and hence is frequently addressed by prophets and apostles.  Again, nothing has "changed."  There's no "moving target."  The Brethren have simply provided an updated application of the Law of Chastity to this phenomenon.

We appear to be headed into a world with "sexbots" (anthropomorphic robot sex dolls).  Again, this sort of thing was not a problem in prior generations.  It may become a problem for people in our day, such that prophetic gup dance may be appropriate and necessary.  But again, there's nothing that has "changed" in any substantive sense.  Just updated and adapted.

Hmm.  So do you differentiate at all?  Is the Bible an altogether "man-made construct?"  Or do you believe that portions of it are revelatory/inspired?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac

I am skeptical of any claim to divine revelation from a God to any man, women,, etc.  It seems historically this has been limited to a very small number.  What, maybe a few hundred or less and many of those who claim God is calling them to be a special sort of prophet and thus we should heed their words, have a conflicting message.

Some of any special book of scripture could be inspired.  Or not. There is really no way to really know. If something uplifts a person, helps them to be better, to care for fellow humans better and not harm anyone then I would say that is inspirational.  Whether some God gave it I do not know.  But I am fairly certain there is no one religion or faith that has a God's one truth or this being's authority.

I hope this better helps you understand my comments. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses and patience with me and other.

 

 

 

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Smac

I am skeptical of any claim to divine revelation from a God to any man, women,, etc. 

I can understand and respect that.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems historically this has been limited to a very small number. 

So you believe that God exists and speaks to people as a generalized concept, but are skeptical in terms of particular claimed instances of such a thing?

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

What, maybe a few hundred or less and many of those who claim God is calling them to be a special sort of prophet and thus we should heed their words, have a conflicting message.

Yep.  Not everyone that claims to have communicated with God has actually done so.  

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Some of any special book of scripture could be inspired.  Or not. There is really no way to really know.

I wonder about that.  I think there is a way to address such things.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

If something uplifts a person, helps them to be better, to care for fellow humans better and not harm anyone then I would say that is inspirational.  Whether some God gave it I do not know.  But I am fairly certain there is no one religion or faith that has a God's one truth or this being's authority.

Okay.  What is it about exclusivistic claims of divinely-bestowed authority that you find problematic?

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

I hope this better helps you understand my comments. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses and patience with me and other.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/13/2017 at 5:13 PM, smac97 said:

The Brethren

Quick tangent:

I've seen this term many many times and I know that it refers to LDS church leadership. Is it just the apostles? Or the other general authorities, too? Anyone know the history of it? I would think "Eldren" would be more appropriate since the leaders are all called "Elder so-and-so" but Eldren sounds like something from Tolkien  Does it come from a time when they weren't called Elders but were called Brother so-and-so?

Thanks.

Edited December 17, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quick tangent:

I've seen this term many many times and I know that it refers to LDS church leadership. Is it just the apostles? Or the other general authorities, too? Anyone know the history of it? I would think "Eldren" would be more appropriate since the leaders are all called "Elder so-and-so" but Eldren sounds like something from Tolkien  Does it come from a time when they weren't called Elders but were called Brother so-and-so?

Thanks.

I have understood it to be a reference to the General Authorities.  I am open to correction, though.

Never heard of "Eldren" (except in attempts at humor).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quick tangent:

I've seen this term many many times and I know that it refers to LDS church leadership. Is it just the apostles? Or the other general authorities, too? Anyone know the history of it? I would think "Eldren" would be more appropriate since the leaders are all called "Elder so-and-so" but Eldren sounds like something from Tolkien  Does it come from a time when they weren't called Elders but were called Brother so-and-so?

Thanks.

It comes from the scriptures. In the King James Bible there are 335 occurrences in the Old Testament and 232in the new 

[Teancum]

On 12/16/2017 at 9:31 PM, smac97 said:

I can understand and respect that.

So you believe that God exists and speaks to people as a generalized concept, but are skeptical in terms of particular claimed instances of such a thing?

Yep.  Not everyone that claims to have communicated with God has actually done so.  

I wonder about that.  I think there is a way to address such things.

Okay.  What is it about exclusivistic claims of divinely-bestowed authority that you find problematic?

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi Smac

Some comments:

 

1:  I hope God exists. Do I believe?  WHere does hope cross over to faith and belief?  I am not sure. I am open to the idea that if God is there God inspires people in various ways. 

2:  In regards to people who may claim to communicate with God but perhaps have not actually done so.... this is one of the main drivers of my skepticism.  Many claim direct revelation from God and many of those who do have conflicting direction.  Because there is not a way to test this other than the metaphysical way of personal "testimony" and many adherents to their own brand of divine revelation and preferred prophet all think God is confirming what they believe is true, yet there is confliction among these, I am extremely skeptical of any claims of divine and direct revelation.  Why would a God make it so complicated?

3:  Exclusive claims that contradict are abundant. The method for discerning who really speaks for God is so incredibly subjective.  I have been listening to a Dehlin podcast/interview of a couple who left the LDS Church and are following the Denver Snuffer movement.  They are convinced the LDS Church is in apostasy and has been since Brigham Young.  They know their LDS scripture and doctrine as well or better than you or me.  They believe God is telling them to follow this path.  Why are they wrong and you right?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hi Smac

Some comments:

1:  I hope God exists. Do I believe?  WHere does hope cross over to faith and belief?  I am not sure. I am open to the idea that if God is there God inspires people in various ways. 

I think hope and faith are intertwined.  I like the JST of Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

2:  In regards to people who may claim to communicate with God but perhaps have not actually done so.... this is one of the main drivers of my skepticism.  Many claim direct revelation from God and many of those who do have conflicting direction. 

Yep.  Some are charlatans.  Some are sincere but deluded.  Some have a portion of light.  Some have dressed up their personal opinions as revelation.  And some may actually have an authoritative "real deal."

I can understand the exasperation that may lead someone to throw their hands in the air and yell "They're all just making it up!"  But that doesn't work for me.  I think spirituality is built into us.  In varying degrees.  What we do with it matters.  But at the end of the day . . . 

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Because there is not a way to test this other than the metaphysical way of personal "testimony" and many adherents to their own brand of divine revelation and preferred prophet all think God is confirming what they believe is true, yet there is confliction among these, I am extremely skeptical of any claims of divine and direct revelation.  Why would a God make it so complicated?

I don't think God is the author of confusion (see 1 Cor. 14:33).  Man is.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

3:  Exclusive claims that contradict are abundant.

Exclusive claims from disparate groups that contradict claims from other groups, you mean?  Yes, I acknowledge that.  

But does that mean they are all wrong?  That nobody has any valid exclusivistic claims?

I think we Mormons have at times been prone to not accurately state the nature of our exclusivistic claims.  Ah, well.  We're getting better, I think.  I hope.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

The method for discerning who really speaks for God is so incredibly subjective. 

In some ways, yes.  But I think what the LDS Church teaches is the best "method" out there.  It allows us room to make a decision.  A choice.  The day will come when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess" the things that we can now accept and declare through the exercise of agency.  And faith.  And hope.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have been listening to a Dehlin podcast/interview of a couple who left the LDS Church and are following the Denver Snuffer movement.  They are convinced the LDS Church is in apostasy and has been since Brigham Young.  They know their LDS scripture and doctrine as well or better than you or me.  They believe God is telling them to follow this path.  Why are they wrong and you right?

I believe there are prophecies and teachings which effectively preclude the central thesis of Denver Snuffer's movement.  I disagree with them that the Church's leaders are in apostasy, or that they are employing deceit to hide this from the general membership, or that "inerrancy" is equivalent to the belief that "the church leadership cannot be led astray," or that such a thing (inerrancy) is taught in the Church.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "{t}he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I also agree with this statement attributed to Joseph Smith: "I will give you a key that will never rust; if you will stay with the majority of the twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  (This last link is an excellent blog entry by Matthew Roper.  Definitely with a read.)

There are also continuing assurances I receive on this point.  I have examined some portions of Denver Snuffer's writings.  I have not been persuaded.  However, I respect those who feel differently on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

1:  I hope God exists. Do I believe?  WHere does hope cross over to faith and belief? 

Do you pray to Him?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think hope and faith are intertwined.  I like the JST of Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Yep.  Some are charlatans.  Some are sincere but deluded.  Some have a portion of light.  Some have dressed up their personal opinions as revelation.  And some may actually have an authoritative "real deal."

I can understand the exasperation that may lead someone to throw their hands in the air and yell "They're all just making it up!"  But that doesn't work for me.  I think spirituality is built into us.  In varying degrees.  What we do with it matters.  But at the end of the day . . . 

I don't think God is the author of confusion (see 1 Cor. 14:33).  Man is.

Exclusive claims from disparate groups that contradict claims from other groups, you mean?  Yes, I acknowledge that.  

But does that mean they are all wrong?  That nobody has any valid exclusivistic claims?

I think we Mormons have at times been prone to not accurately state the nature of our exclusivistic claims.  Ah, well.  We're getting better, I think.  I hope.

In some ways, yes.  But I think what the LDS Church teaches is the best "method" out there.  It allows us room to make a decision.  A choice.  The day will come when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess" the things that we can now accept and declare through the exercise of agency.  And faith.  And hope.

I believe there are prophecies and teachings which effectively preclude the central thesis of Denver Snuffer's movement.  I disagree with them that the Church's leaders are in apostasy, or that they are employing deceit to hide this from the general membership, or that "inerrancy" is equivalent to the belief that "the church leadership cannot be led astray," or that such a thing (inerrancy) is taught in the Church.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "{t}he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I also agree with this statement attributed to Joseph Smith: "I will give you a key that will never rust; if you will stay with the majority of the twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  (This last link is an excellent blog entry by Matthew Roper.  Definitely with a read.)

There are also continuing assurances I receive on this point.  I have examined some portions of Denver Snuffer's writings.  I have not been persuaded.  However, I respect those who feel differently on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will consider and ponder your comments.

Merry Christmas!