New Research Reports Most Younger Mormons Now "Strongly Favor" or "Favor" SSM

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Ya, I think universal morality is impossible to argue for a Mormon.  The difficulty with assigning a universal morality is that there are always exceptions to the rule.  If the rules are "thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, monogamy, etc", there are exceptions to those rules.  What might be moral for one person, may not be moral for another.  Take this moral in the Book of Mormon for example - "it is better that one man perish then a whole nation dwindle and perish in unbelief."  If morality is universal, then that moral has to be taken as a universal injunction for all, and not just for Nephi in that very specific situation.  Nephi believed that God commanded him to kill and therefore we call it moral.  The Israelite’s did the same.  However, when radical Islam does it, we demand that it is immoral.  Morality is purely a matter of faith in my opinion.  A person has to follow their own morals/heart, but shouldn't be surprised when they get push back from people with different morals.  In the end, God will judge our hearts/morals. 

I don't know if this was supposed to apply to me or not but I wasn't arguing for what you call a universal morality in the sense of some rules which are universally moral in all situations.

Kant's categorical imperative was essentially what we would call the Golden Rule.

He called it a universifiable maxim.

He developed a kind of hierarchy of Maxim's with which I do not necessarily agree but I do agree with that principle of universifiability.

And technically the way he worded it it was not the Golden Rule at all. That is a big over simplification.

I suppose this is not a good forum for discussing Kant.

[nuclearfuels]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure reason helps here. I doubt a lot of that.

Come now, Nehor. 

Don't hold back.

Teach, expound, exhort.

Are you suggesting God's Ancestors operated under different-in-kind (not different-in-degree) sets of rules and Diety may in effect choose the rules by which They manage their jurisdictions?

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Again just to clarify I will state it more simply. 

Morality MAKES rules necessary  for survival of the species. It does not follow from that that all that is needed for survival of the species is therefore moral.

Eating is necessary for survival of the species. Eating has nothing to do with morality as long as you're not eating people. On the other hand sometimes eating people may actually be the moral thing to do which is necessary for the survival of the species as has happened in some disastrous situations where dead people were in abundant supply, but other food was not.  We are not talking about actions we are talking about principles which make actions moral.

Better?

Much better.  Thank you.

It's also clear from your response that not all behaviors are universally moral or immoral, but depend on the context in which the principle is applied (such as your example of cannibalism).

With that in mind, would you agree that non-reproductive relationships that represent a small subset of the overall community (and which also contribute to the community's welfare in non-procreative ways) aren't necessarily immoral, even from a purely 'survival-of-the species' standpoint?

Edited May 4, 2018 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

On 5/4/2018 at 1:15 PM, nuclearfuels said:

Come now, Nehor. 

Don't hold back.

Teach, expound, exhort.

Are you suggesting God's Ancestors operated under different-in-kind (not different-in-degree) sets of rules and Diety may in effect choose the rules by which They manage their jurisdictions?

I avoid teaching at the edge of my knowledge. This would be Warner Brothers cartoon coyote standing in midair ten feet away from the cliff edge.

Edited May 7, 2018 by The Nehor

[cinepro]

This Yahoo story hit the Drudge Report, so it's getting pretty wide exposure:

Mormon support for gay marriage gradually grows

[Eek!]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This Yahoo story hit the Drudge Report, so it's getting pretty wide exposure:

Mormon support for gay marriage gradually grows

From the article:

"The survey found that Mormons had the largest gap between support for gay marriage and support for anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT people. While only 40 percent of Mormons favor gay marriage, 69 percent support anti-discrimination laws."

A big virtual thumbs-up to all those Mormons who support anti-discrimination laws, even while they still sustain their leaders on gay marriage. 

[Rivers]

I support the right of gays to marry as much as I support the right of people to smoke, drink, have extra-marital sex, and burn the American flag.  I can be against something and still support the legality of it.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Much better.  Thank you.

It's also clear from your response that not all behaviors are universally moral or immoral, but depend on the context in which the principle is applied (such as your example of cannibalism).

With that in mind, would you agree that non-reproductive relationships that represent a small subset of the overall community (and which also contribute to the community's welfare in non-procreative ways) aren't necessarily immoral, even from a purely 'survival-of-the species' standpoint?

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?

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I support the right of gays to marry as much as I support the right of people to smoke, drink, have extra-marital sex, and burn the American flag.  I can be against something and still support the legality of it.

Oh yeah- I am certainly not arguing against the legality of whatever people want to call "marriage".  I am a Libertatian in that regard in case anyone actually cares. 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/2/2018 at 2:46 PM, Daniel2 said:

Or, as many of us like to call it..... marriage.

When my husband and I introduce one another, we don’t say, “Nice to meet you, too! And this is my gay husband...”

Good point.

I mean no one would ever guess that after all, right? 

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah- I am certainly not arguing against the legality of whatever people want to call "marriage".  I am a Libertatian in that regard in case anyone actually cares. 

It seems that even most politically conservative aren’t talking about gay marriage much anymore.  Ever since the Supreme Court decision, it’s not something worth fighting against right now.  

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

This Yahoo story hit the Drudge Report, so it's getting pretty wide exposure:

Mormon support for gay marriage gradually grows

I know many are saying that the shift towards the support for gay marriage is similar to the support to sell liquor, smoke cigarettes etc.  That is probably true for a lot of members of the church.  But in all of the articles, that is not what young people at least, are saying their reasons were for the shift in attitude.

From the article.

Quote

"I can't look at him and his boyfriend and tell them that they can't be happy and they can't love each other," said Landers, 20, of Draper, Utah. "Heavenly Father loves us for who we are. He wants us to be happy, as long as we're treating people well and we're being who we truly are and we're not hurting anyone."

 

Quote

Luis Miranda, a 30-year-old heterosexual Mormon, said he wasn't surprised by the survey results because he senses a shifting tone among other young Mormons in the singles congregation he attends.

He said he grew up as a Catholic in Guatemala believing that traditional marriage between a man and a woman was sacred and important. He continued to hold that belief after he moved to Utah as a teenager and converted to Mormonism.

But as he grew older, he realized he needed to meet and spend more time with gays and lesbians. "I realized they were just as beautiful and loving with each other, and as pure as anyone else," said Miranda, of Salt Lake City.  

Miranda said he sometimes struggles to reconcile his opinion with what church leaders are teaching. He believes Mormon leaders have good intentions. He is committed to remain in the religion to be a voice of support for gay marriage.

He finds hope in the fact that the religion believes church doctrine can be altered through revelations from God. That's how the church explained why it lifted the ban on blacks in the religion's lay priesthood in 1978.

"If it's happened before, it could happen again," Miranda said.

From the Trib article

Quote

That is especially true among LDS youths, who are discovering more supportive attitudes from friends, social media and their parents.

“They are finding they are not alone, so they are more willing to be open and honest about who they are,” Munson says. “When it is a loved one who is explaining this to you, it is hard to turn them away.”

I realize this is just antidotal, but from what I have heard amongst younger people, this seems to be the reason for their change in attitudes.  I just don't think you can pass off the huge shift towards gay marriage simply because it is legal.  I think there are a lot of people who see marriage fosters stronger loving relationships between all people, not just straights.  A committed relationship within the bonds of marriage just doesn't look like some kind of apostate immoral act just because someone is gay.  That seems to be what is making the shift.  I think that is why the shift will continue.  I fully expect next years survey to show even more support for gay marriage among Mormons.

This however does not mean that I think church leaders are going to change their position on gay marriage any time in the foreseeable future.  It will be interesting however, how they deal with the majority of members supporting something that is against church teachings.  That doesn't happen very often.

Edited May 5, 2018 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

Quote

"Heavenly Father loves us for who we are. He wants us to be happy, as long as we're treating people well and we're being who we truly are and we're not hurting anyone."

I increasingly think this kind of statement is a central reason why The Book of Mormon was written ‘for our day’. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I increasingly think this kind of statement is a central reason why The Book of Mormon was written ‘for our day’. 

This is so true. I can see, like Nephi, the devil rejoicing at these kind of statements. These are the pleasing lies, the flaxen cords that ensnare until he has them tight in the chains of hell. I am so grateful that Christ has the power to break those chains if we accept His yoke.  

[Jeanne]

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.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Jeanne

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This is so true. I can see, like Nephi, the devil rejoicing at these kind of statements. These are the pleasing lies, the flaxen cords that ensnare until he has them tight in the chains of hell. I am so grateful that Christ has the power to break those chains if we accept His yoke.  

 

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

"Heavenly Father loves us for who we are. He wants us to be happy, as long as we're treating people well and we're being who we truly are and we're not hurting anyone."

I increasingly think this kind of statement is a central reason why The Book of Mormon was written ‘for our day’. 

Funny, I read Hamba's statement just the opposite of you.  The scripture that popped into my mind from the Book of Mormon was "Adam fell that men might be.  Men are that they might have joy. "  

Having joy seems core to the gospel.  So does treating others well.  You know, the whole golden rule thing.   

Maybe Hamba might be willing to explain more what he means.  

Love to hear what you meant by your comment as well.  Being happy and kind to others is the plan of the devil??  I can't be understanding your comment right.  it doesn't seem like something you would say.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, 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.

Of course, Heavenly Father loves us for who we are.  He also has a much better knowledge of who we are than we do.

"12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Funny, I read Hamba's statement just the opposite of you.  The scripture that popped into my mind from the Book of Mormon was "Adam fell that men might be.  Men are that they might have joy. "  

Having joy seems core to the gospel.  So does treating others well.  You know, the whole golden rule thing.   

Maybe Hamba might be willing to explain more what he means.  

Love to hear what you meant by your comment as well.  Being happy and kind to others is the plan of the devil??  I can't be understanding your comment right.  it doesn't seem like something you would say.

Since Hamba gave a rep point to kllindley’s response, it would seem that kllindley understood better than you Hamba’s intended meaning. Perhaps you should ponder more thoroughly kllindley’s analysis of Hamba’s statement and the application by both of the Book of Mormon  to the matter at hand. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

One of the central purposes of The Book of Mormon is to teach the doctrine of Christ in clarity and to safeguard it. In doing so, it identifies competing doctrines that the text itself identifies as 'anti-Christ'. One of these instances occurs in the first chapter of Alma and involved a man named Nehor.

The summary of Nehor's 'doctrine' is brief but interesting:

Quote

And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

This preaching proved enticing, and even after Nehor was removed from Nephite society, his doctrine persisted and spread. When Alma later visited the city of Ammonihah, he found its lawyers, judges and priests to be 'of the profession of Nehor'.

Nehor's central message becomes even clearer when one considers its application in Ammonihah. In essence, followers of Nehor held an extreme dislike for any suggestion that they weren't fine just the way God had supposedly made them, and they bristled at any suggestion that they might face punishment unless they chose to deny themselves in any way. Note the words of the chief judge:

Quote

... the chief judge of the land came and stood before Alma and Amulek, as they were bound; and he smote them with his hand upon their cheeks, and said unto them: After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?

And the words of others:

Quote

Will ye stand again and judge this people, and condemn our law? If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves? And many such things did they say unto them, gnashing their teeth upon them, and spitting upon them, and saying: How shall we look when we are damned?

The application of Nehor's teachings is clear: don't judge others, don't condemn them, and definitely don't don't suggest they might need to change in some way in order to avoid punishment!

Why not? Because the Lord had created them and guaranteed them eternal life, no changes or denial necessary.

This last point finds its emphasis later in the account, after Alma and Amulek had left Ammonihah:

Quote

But as to the people that were in the land of Ammonihah, they yet remained a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people; and they repented not of their sins, … for they were of the profession of Nehor, and did not believe in the repentance of their sins.

No repentance needed. Why not? Because God had made people just the way He wanted them, and He loved them just they way they were. End of problem.

Of course, no repentance = no need for a Saviour. And that highlights why exactly these doctrines are labelled 'anti-Christ'.

Because the central doctrine of Christ is that people aren't fine just the way we are. Not one of us. Each of us has desires and appetites that exceed the Lord's bounds. In short, each of us sins and is sinful. This is specifically why we need a Saviour: we need saving, and that includes being saved from ourselves.

Nehor's modern counterparts preach an enticing doctrine -- lift up your head and rejoice; you're fine just the way you are! -- and as it did during the time of Alma, this doctrine appears to be spreading. And like Nehor, those who advance this doctrine often find themselves in a position of some celebrity, including the money and fine clothing.

But it is not the doctrine of Christ.

In stark contrast, the mortal Christ issued a very different invitation:

Quote

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Does that mean God doesn't love us? No! He loves us despite our flaws and our sins, but because He loves us, He's not content to let us linger in our fallen and carnal states.

Why not? Specifically because He wants us to be happy, to have joy. God in His perfection knows the best way for that to happen. It is His way. For this reason He invites us to deny ourselves and to bring our desires and actions into alignment with His will.

And He provides a Saviour for us to make this all possible.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Funny, I read Hamba's statement just the opposite of you.  The scripture that popped into my mind from the Book of Mormon was "Adam fell that men might be.  Men are that they might have joy. "  

Having joy seems core to the gospel.  So does treating others well.  You know, the whole golden rule thing.   

Maybe Hamba might be willing to explain more what he means.  

Love to hear what you meant by your comment as well.  Being happy and kind to others is the plan of the devil??  I can't be understanding your comment right.  it doesn't seem like something you would say.

CB, thank you. I deeply appreciate that you have me the benefit of the doubt here. I had started the reply, then got interrupted and then hurriedly finished the post before a nephew's baptism. I didn't explain thoroughly, and I can totally see how one might get that meaning from what I wrote. 

Ultimately, I don't think that you will agree with or even like my more complete thoughts and understanding of the Book of Mormon. But you are correct that I did not in the least mean to suggest that being happy or kind is of the devil, or that anything we can do decreases God's love for us. 

13 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by kllindley

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, 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 only accept negative comments about the church as being true?

Have you thought about that?

[Eek!]

7 hours ago, 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.

The following is just my opinion.

God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons (otherwise, why would we worship him?  Out of fear??).  And any line of thinking that leads to a different conclusion has a mistake in it somewhere.

The line of thinking you have described leads to this conclusion:  "God does not want me to be happy".   Imo your line of thinking is logical, so the mistake would be in the premise:  "Heavenly Father doesn't love us for who we are." 

So rather than waste energy fighting to overthrow that premise, simply discard it, and replace it with a better one.  Maybe something like this:

"Perfect love casts out all fear.  If something engenders fear, it is not perfect love." 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Eek!

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the central purposes of The Book of Mormon is to teach the doctrine of Christ in clarity and to safeguard it. In doing so, it identifies competing doctrines that the text itself identifies as 'anti-Christ'. One of these instances occurs in the first chapter of Alma and involved a man named Nehor.

The summary of Nehor's 'doctrine' is brief but interesting:

This preaching proved enticing, and even after Nehor was removed from Nephite society, his doctrine persisted and spread. When Alma later visited the city of Ammonihah, he found its lawyers, judges and priests to be 'of the profession of Nehor'.

Nehor's central message becomes even clearer when one considers its application in Ammonihah. In essence, followers of Nehor held an extreme dislike for any suggestion that they weren't fine just the way God had supposedly made them, and they bristled at any suggestion that they might face punishment unless they chose to deny themselves in any way. Note the words of the chief judge:

And the words of others:

The application of Nehor's teachings is clear: don't judge others, don't condemn them, and definitely don't don't suggest they might need to change in some way in order to avoid punishment!

Why not? Because the Lord had created them and guaranteed them eternal life, no changes or denial necessary.

This last point finds its emphasis later in the account, after Alma and Amulek had left Ammonihah:

No repentance needed. Why not? Because God had made people just the way He wanted them, and He loved them just they way they were. End of problem.

Of course, no repentance = no need for a Saviour. And that highlights why exactly these doctrines are labelled 'anti-Christ'.

Because the central doctrine of Christ is that people aren't fine just the way we are. Not one of us. Each of us has desires and appetites that exceed the Lord's bounds. In short, each of us sins and is sinful. This is specifically why we need a Saviour: we need saving, and that includes being saved from ourselves.

Nehor's modern counterparts preach an enticing doctrine -- you're fine just the way you are! -- and as it did during the time of Alma, this doctrine appears to be spreading. And like Nehor, those who advance this doctrine often find themselves in a position of some celebrity, including the money and fine clothing.

But it is not the doctrine of Christ.

In stark contrast, the mortal Christ issued a very different invitation:

Does that mean God doesn't love us? No! He loves us despite our flaws and our sins, but because He loves us, He's not content to let us linger in our fallen and carnal states.

Why not? Specifically because He wants us to be happy, to have joy. God in His perfection knows the best way for that to happen. It is His way. For this reason He invites us to deny ourselves and to bring our desires and actions into alignment with His will.

And He provides a Saviour for us to make this all possible.

Exactly. Maybe a bit more eloquent than I would have put it, but yes. I was thinking of Nehor. And also Korihor who taught that all the commandments and the need for remission of sins was a result of the foolish traditions of their fathers, that a person couldn't really know about God or Christ and that any such beliefs are just the effect of our minds. He also accused Alma and the other prophets of teaching the commandments in order to keep the people in a form of bondage.  

In my earlier comment I was referencing the vision where Nephi saw these teachings--that people don't need a Savior, that there is no sin, that people should do whatever makes them happy--appear to be encircling the world like a chain. But most people were not even aware of being in captivity because the teachings are so appealing.  Nephi saw the devil holding that chain and laughing. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

CB, thank you. I deeply appreciate that you have me the benefit of the doubt here. I had started the reply, then got interrupted and then hurriedly finished the post before a nephew's baptism. I didn't explain thoroughly, and I can totally see how one might get that meaning from what I wrote. 

Ultimately, I don't think that you will agree with or even like my more complete thoughts and understanding of the Book of Mormon. But you are correct that I did not in the least mean to suggest that being happy or kind is of the devil, or that anything we can do decreases God's love for us. 

Yeah, I don't always agree with you,  but I always like reading and considering your comments.  We come at this from two different life experiences.  Many of your beliefs I can identify with.  Some I can not.  Isn't that why we are on a discussion board?

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you only accept negative comments about the church as being true?

Have you thought about that?

I often post very positive things and support the progress of the church.  Usually, if I question something..I speak straight forward and I know it sounds condemning...I apologize but whether any of you realize it or not...I am the biggest fan of the regular ..in chapel..mormon.  I believe that if you ask some of the women on this board you may find that I am more friend than foe.  I do not mean to offend.  Just huge questions that fly..☺️

Edited May 6, 2018 by Jeanne