Eek! Posted May 6, 2018 Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, kllindley said: I did not in the least mean to suggest that... anything we can do decreases God's love for us. If I may streamline that sentence a bit: "Nothing we can do decreases God's love for us." This is a megathought. Its implications are far-reaching and transformational, and for me personally, still unfolding. Imo one of its implications is, that the Good Shepherd never gives up on his lost sheep. Edited May 6, 2018 by Eek!
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/5/2018 at 11:38 AM, Jeanne said: So Heavenly Father doesn't love us for who we are. Huh...now you tell me..when I have tried so hard to please Him. You realize that this statement doesn't just portend to one thing..but as a whole as children of God? I guess the devil's has got me...if the words of the Lord are not to YOUR understanding, then it is of the devil. Pretty much how the TBM family looks at me.. I am thinking...God does not want me to be happy. Why do you see yourself so much as an outsider? I am genuinely curious.
JayneAdelle Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/1/2018 at 8:46 PM, california boy said: From the article, I found this quote from the article thought provoking What do you think will happen when the majority of members no longer believes what the leadership is teaching? What is more astounding about these numbers is the dramatic shift in JUST ONE YEAR. Last year the same poll showed these results The 2016 Poll Results This years study shows these results The 2017 Poll Results The 65 and older age bracket went from 20% support of gay marriage to 32%. That is a 12 point difference in a single year. The 18-29 age bracket went from 40% to 52%. Also a 12 point difference. That is a monumental shift for a single year. It also means the majority of young Mormons now support gay marriage. Do you want to know what is even more impressive? The change in supporting gay marriage from 2015 poll to 2016 poll was an 11% increase in support. So in the last two years alone, support for gay marriage in the Mormon Church has swung 23 points in both of these age groups. 40% of all Mormons now support gay marriage. From 2017 poll Wow. The majority of Mormons still don't support gay marriage, but the percentage is rapidly increasing in just a years time. Given the trends of the last two years, it is highly probable that the majority of all Mormons may support gay marriage this time next year. When you have that big of change to supporting something that the church teaches directly against, and a majority of young people in the church supporting, you kind of wonder where this is all going to head. Can the church continue to teach a principle that the majority of members don't agree with? Has the church ever taught a doctrine that the majority of members disagreed with? Hence the question asked in the article: "What happens when the membership no longer believes what the leadership is teaching?” Hi, everyone. I'm new here. Hope my comments contribute something to the discussion. Remember when Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood? That policy became very unpopular as Civil Rights became more & more important within and without the Church. I'm not saying that's WHY the policy changed, but the change was made nevertheless. Also, the Garments have changed dramatically since they were first developed, even though they were originally believed to be ordained to stay the same. Polygamy also changed under social pressure as well as legal pressure. The Church will weather this change and come to be reminded that no mortal may pass judgment on another--"Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord." The whole of the law shall be to love one another. Love is never wrong. Judging another is always wrong. If we want to choose the right, we will choose to love those who love each other, not judge them.
california boy Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, JayneAdelle said: Hi, everyone. I'm new here. Hope my comments contribute something to the discussion. Remember when Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood? That policy became very unpopular as Civil Rights became more & more important within and without the Church. I'm not saying that's WHY the policy changed, but the change was made nevertheless. Also, the Garments have changed dramatically since they were first developed, even though they were originally believed to be ordained to stay the same. Polygamy also changed under social pressure as well as legal pressure. The Church will weather this change and come to be reminded that no mortal may pass judgment on another--"Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord." The whole of the law shall be to love one another. Love is never wrong. Judging another is always wrong. If we want to choose the right, we will choose to love those who love each other, not judge them. I agree with your thoughts. And welcome to the board. The harder church leaders push against marriage, the less members support their belief. Perhaps in the end church leaders will let God sort out what plan He has for his gay children in the next life and allow them to participate equally in the church in this life. The church will survive
Jeanne Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Why do you see yourself so much as an outsider? I am genuinely curious. Well...it really has nothing to do with religion. Being particially deaf most of my life...and then not much hearing at all anymore..I don't know why people are laughing..in someways it affected my speech..though I did not realize that..and then people would laugh..at times I would think I was the same as every body else and then realize that really...I was just getting through the day and at the end of it..I had friends..☺️ It is in fact that without any LDS church doctrine...that I owe the church many things...getting me out of a comfort zone..being a leader..developing musical talents that I was able to do at the time..and a wonderful inclusion. I feel I am on the outside ...(and it is okay)...because being deaf is the loneliest disability.
Daniel2 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) On 05/05/2018 at 12:07 AM, mfbukowski said: I do not believe that intercourse outside of marriage contributes to the community's welfare in any way. Can you suggest how non-marital sex helps society? And how does non-procreative sex help society? I have trouble with that idea. Porn for example often includes masturbation which is non-procreative sex often involving psychological addiction and learned objectification of people as sex objects. I think there is increasing evidence of the damage porn does, on the other hand. In my book anything that objectifies people is not moral. I am not saying that masturbation hurts society, just that it does not help it and is not a positive habit to develop. Does porn help society? I didn't say anything about intercourse outside of marriage as a benefit to society, nor is that a position I would defend. The merits or problems of pornography are beyond the scope of my experience and my position I've been discussing here. Regarding the benefits of non-procreative sex, I would agree with the following statements: The lawful association of couples is ordained by society, not only as the sole means of race perpetuation, but for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship between spouses alone can insure. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means couples may either a) join in a process of creation, or b) in an expression of love. I know of no directive that proper sexual experience between spouses need be limited totally to the procreation of children, though I believe that unchecked, indiscriminate sexual activity often leads to physically, emotionally, and spiritually unhealthy destructive and self-destructive outcomes. I agree that our natural affections are planted in us by whatever 'divine' source of the creator of our lives and existence itself, for a wise purpose; and they are the very main-springs of life and happiness—they are the cement of all virtuous and heavenly society—they are the essence of charity, or love, and that there is not a more pure and holy principle in existence than the affection which glows in the bosoms of loving, committed, and married couples. I believe that love expressed between spouses (including that shared between my husband and I) must be nourished. Further, I believe that great love and interdependence has grown between my husband and I, for our love is a divine one. It is deep, inclusive, comprehensive. It is not like that association of the world which is misnamed love, but which is mostly physical attraction. I agree that when marriage is based on this only, the parties soon tire of each other. There is a break and a divorce, and a new, fresher physical attraction comes with another marriage which in turn may last only until it, too, becomes stale. The love of which I sought and was blessed to find is not only physical attraction, but spiritual attraction as well. It is faith and confidence in, and understanding of, one another. It is a total partnership. It is companionship with common ideals and standards. It is unselfishness toward and sacrifice for one another. It is cleanliness of thought and action and faith in one another, our extended family, and in our neighborhood and broader communities. It is parenthood and raising our children while ever looking towards good citizenship and charity for our fellow men and women. It is vast, all-inclusive, and limitless. This kind of love never tires or wanes. It lives on through sickness and sorrow, through prosperity and privation, through accomplishment and disappointment, and through time and whatever part of me is eternal. Non-procreative sex between my husband and I serves to strengthen our relationship, just as non-procreative sex between opposite-sex couples can serves to strengthen theirs. Encouraging marital commitment is a step towards emotional, financial, spiritual, and sexual stability, not away from it. Society benefits from stable family relationships due to familial care-giving bonds that alleviate social programs designed to assist citizens who are unable to care for themselves. I support any and all efforts by our society to strengthen family relationships, to encourage stability between marital partnerships, and to support parents raising children together as family units (whether conceived or adopted). Edited May 7, 2018 by Daniel2 1
mfbukowski Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I didn't say anything about intercourse outside of marriage as a benefit to society, nor is that a position I would defend. The merits or problems of pornography are beyond the scope of my experience and my position I've been discussing here. Regarding the benefits of non-procreative sex, I would agree with the following statements: The lawful association of couples is ordained by society, not only as the sole means of race perpetuation, but for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship between spouses alone can insure. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means couples may either a) join in a process of creation, or b) in an expression of love. I know of no directive that proper sexual experience between spouses need be limited totally to the procreation of children, though I believe that unchecked, indiscriminate sexual activity often leads to physically, emotionally, and spiritually unhealthy destructive and self-destructive outcomes. I agree that our natural affections are planted in us by whatever 'divine' source of the creator of our lives and existence itself, for a wise purpose; and they are the very main-springs of life and happiness—they are the cement of all virtuous and heavenly society—they are the essence of charity, or love, and that there is not a more pure and holy principle in existence than the affection which glows in the bosoms of loving, committed, and married couples. I believe that love expressed between spouses (including that shared between my husband and I) must be nourished. Further, I believe that great love and interdependence has grown between my husband and I, for our love is a divine one. It is deep, inclusive, comprehensive. It is not like that association of the world which is misnamed love, but which is mostly physical attraction. I agree that when marriage is based on this only, the parties soon tire of each other. There is a break and a divorce, and a new, fresher physical attraction comes with another marriage which in turn may last only until it, too, becomes stale. The love of which I sought and was blessed to find is not only physical attraction, but spiritual attraction as well. It is faith and confidence in, and understanding of, one another. It is a total partnership. It is companionship with common ideals and standards. It is unselfishness toward and sacrifice for one another. It is cleanliness of thought and action and faith in one another, our extended family, and in our neighborhood and broader communities. It is parenthood and raising our children while ever looking towards good citizenship and charity for our fellow men and women. It is vast, all-inclusive, and limitless. This kind of love never tires or wanes. It lives on through sickness and sorrow, through prosperity and privation, through accomplishment and disappointment, and through time and whatever part of me is eternal. Non-procreative sex between my husband and I serves to strengthen our relationship, just as non-procreative sex between opposite-sex couples can serves to strengthen theirs. Encouraging marital commitment is a step towards emotional, financial, spiritual, and sexual stability, not away from it. Society benefits from stable family relationships due to familial care-giving bonds that alleviate social programs designed to assist citizens who are unable to care for themselves. I support any and all efforts by our society to strengthen family relationships, to encourage stability between marital partnerships, and to support parents raising children together as family units (whether conceived or adopted). Well said, and thank you. I will think about it probably for the rest of my life.
Recommended Posts