Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

Common consent exists in functionality but not in any real sense (and I say this as an extremely conservative member), it's more perfunctory than anything else now.  IMO casting a sustaining vote is extremely serous business and should be done with great consideration and prayer-yet b/c of the way we currently do sustainings that's very difficult to do now.

I completely agree that we should not have anything resembling "elections", it should be as the scriptures state the leadership presents members to the congregation (ward, stake, general body) and the membership then votes to say yes we agree with your choice or no we don't agree with your choice.  The problem being in today's church (and maybe it has always been this way), but by presenting the sustaining immediately as the name is announced it does not give membership time at all to seriously study, ponder and pray about that sustaining.

A name is presented and the congregation is supposed to make an immediate decision yeah or nay-well IMO that's a crappy way of doing things. Unless you expect every member to immediately feel the Spirit and to confirm in that moment (which maybe they expect that), there is just no possible way to actually take it to prayer, ponder, study, etc. immediately.  And because of that, the sustaining vote basically becomes perfunctory-i.e. pretty much meaningless. The only way someone is going to say no is if they know of some deep dark secret . . .

If Sister Smith is called as Primary President, you may barely know her and the moment she is called you are asked sustain.  You've been given no opportunity to converse with her-at least have even a 5 min conversation about her thoughts/feelings/intents about Primary (maybe she is called into Primary and HATES kids but is only taking the calling b/c she never turns down a calling), do I really want a Primary President to teach my little children who hates kids and thinks they are horrible?  But b/c of the way we doing sustaining, I'm given absolutely no opportunity to actually do what the scriptures suggest which is to investigate and study it out in my mind and then pray if my decision is correct. And b/c I've been given no opportunity to do that (and the general membership hasn't been given that ability) you have two options, either don't vote or vote sustain-well you don't want to look like a fool not voting when everyone else is voting sustain and b/c you don't have any reason to not sustain you vote sustain.  Then you find out 6 months later she's a horrible PP can't stand kids and asks to be released . . and then the membership just thinks well it was God's will!  I'm convinced a significant amount of leadership problems we do have with things like Sam Young brings up (and I think amazingly enough there isn't many of them-God certainly has His hand in that!) would become much smaller if the membership actually took the time to do their due diligence before just blindly sustaining whoever is called in the moment b/c they don't have an opportunity to actually do their due diligence.

And in general I am okay with the way things have been done for the past 50-60+ years b/c in general simply being a member of the Church you generally knew that most people thought very much the same way on things. But that's no longer the case, culture, ideas, etc. have changed dramatically where you can be in the same religion with the person sitting next to you but have absolutely nothing in common as far as ideology and belief systems go except for the extreme basics (JS, BoM, Christ, God, etc.).  We are getting to a point where the actual teachings of leaders will dramatically  diverge based upon their philosophy of left/right liberal/conservative.

For example you could easily get in a ward a YW president now who is a feminist and encourages the youth to go to PRIDE parades, make PRIDE bracelets, young women to go out and be in the workforce etc., etc.  She could be temple worthy and all that- yet I'll be darned if I want a feminist teaching my young daughters in the Church-I'd vote opposed.  By the same token you could just as easily get a very traditional YW president who is all about stay-at-home, very traditional based roles for YW.  If I'm a modernist-I'd vote no to her b/c I wouldn't want her teaching my daughters either!

I believe, the perfunctory mechanism of sustaining is covering up a lot of underlying discord within the Church.  Instead of this discord being made manifest inside the actual chapels-that discord is evident in an area where it can be made manifest which is on the internet, in facebook, youtube, here, etc.

Why do we do sustainings immediately after the name is submitted?  How hard would it be to simply announce the individuals a week ahead of time, ask the membership to go home pray, ponder study and then come back ready to sustain or not sustain the next week?  There is nothing doctrinal about submitting a name and sustaining that very minute.

Interesting suggestion.

So many times dissensions and contention arose in the Nephites Church. None of them turned out well. That’s a major continuing theme in the Book of Mormon. 

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

As i recall someone affliation with honosexual advocay type groups was a basis for recommend denial. I cannot recall much, it was a male, who recorded a interveiw with his priesthood leader and the person affliation with such grouos was an issue.

I just dont think you can claim with across the board assurance as you do. 

It's scatter-shot, hit and miss,  look at how many LDS members are part of Affirmation, Mormon Building Bridges, North Star etc.  They may claim they are just for a "safe space", but I've been reading what they put out for long enough to know that "safe space" is only a facade.  They are really advocacy groups to push as much and as far as possible with all things LGBT inside the Church with the ultimate end-goal of allowing homosexual sealings to take place.

Some Bishops will revoke a recommend, some will not-it just depends. Mormon Building Bridges on facebook has about 8000 members, now granted certainly all of those aren't temple attending members, but I guarantee many, many of them are.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

please be accurate when quoting me. Do not chop my statements.

I quoted your entire post.

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Sam complaint about how violation of Common Consent happened, started as a result of what is referred to by critics of the Church as "The November Policy"

I think I understand what you are saying now.

p.s.  Personally I prefer to nickname "PoX"... Policy of Exclusion.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

But that can be true of any relationship or any group. 

Didn't say otherwise.

[YJacket]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting suggestion.

So many times dissensions and contention arose in the Nephites Church. None of them turned out well. That’s a major continuing theme in the Book of Mormon. 

I totally agree, it ain't gonna turn out well.  I would prefer that the contention didn't happen; I don't think that's the case.  In fact the contention is already inside the Church, we just don't recognize it as such b/c on Sunday it's all glossed over-but take it over after Sunday and how many twitter/facebook/youtube/forum wars happen between temple recommend holding members?

Part of that reason for the contention is that the Church's messaging has changed.

I'm not that old and I remember when the Church's message was "woman shouldn't work outside the home" now the message is "woman can choose to work or not to work, whatever you think is best".  Well when you have leadership saying "whatever you think is best", that's not leadership-it's anything goes.  And you are going to have people like me who look at scripture, read scripture and say wait this message given today doesn't work with scripture, something is wrong here and you are going to have other people say "it's a new era, the modern world, the scriptures were written in a different time and they don't apply to us", and then you have leadership that says "you can be old-school or new-school, whatever you think is best" . . . recipe for contention!

Can't wait for Christ to come to sort this mess out and tell us we are all wrong!

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, YJacket said:

It's scatter-shot, hit and miss,  look at how many LDS members are part of Affirmation, Mormon Building Bridges, North Star etc.  They may claim they are just for a "safe space", but I've been reading what they put out for long enough to know that "safe space" is only a facade.  They are really advocacy groups to push as much and as far as possible with all things LGBT inside the Church with the ultimate end-goal of allowing homosexual sealings to take place.

Some Bishops will revoke a recommend, some will not-it just depends. Mormon Building Bridges on facebook has about 8000 members, now granted certainly all of those aren't temple attending members, but I guarantee many, many of them are.

Interestingly on Tuesday of this week, in the BYU devotional, Sister Nunez promoted Encircle in Provo, an LGBTQ+ youth and family resource center.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Some Bishops will revoke a recommend, some will not-it just depends. Mormon Building Bridges on facebook has about 8000 members, now granted certainly all of those aren't temple attending members, but I guarantee many, many of them are.

I agree.  Here's this:

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

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

Quote

 

An LDS apostle reaffirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice.

......

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

......

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

 

But he also states this:

Quote

Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see those implications.  So I think those questions can be truthfully answered without believing in the one and only true church or that the prophet can't lead the church astray.

First Vision and Book of Mormon aren't even referenced.

They are implicit in the doctrine of the Restoration. No First Vision, no Book of Mormon, no Restoration. D&C 1 and 5 and the testimony of the witnesses make that crystal clear.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They are implicit in the doctrine of the Restoration. No First Vision, no Book of Mormon, no Restoration. D&C 1 and 5 and the testimony of the witnesses make that crystal clear.

Book of Mormon historicity is implicit in the doctrine of the restoration?  That's a stretch.

Regarding the First Vision, what exactly do you feel one must have a testimony of?  That some kind of vision occurred?  That it was God?  Jesus?  Both?  A physical manifestation?  Spiritual manifestation?  That Joseph was 14?  15?  That he asked which church was true?  Or that he already knew they were all false and was just seeking forgiveness?

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Didn't say otherwise.

I understand. It’s human nature. Perhaps we should expect more from members of the Church.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, rockpond said:

Book of Mormon historicity is implicit in the doctrine of the restoration?  That's a stretch.

Regarding the First Vision, what exactly do you feel one must have a testimony of?  That some kind of vision occurred?  That it was God?  Jesus?  Both?  A physical manifestation?  Spiritual manifestation?  That Joseph was 14?  15?  That he asked which church was true?  Or that he already knew they were all false and was just seeking forgiveness?

Yes, it is. If Moroni was a fictional character or a delusion, then the Restoration is also a delusion. All the testimonies and statements about it that are canonized in the D&C would be false. 

I have no problem with multiple accounts. 

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, YJacket said:

It's scatter-shot, hit and miss,  look at how many LDS members are part of Affirmation, Mormon Building Bridges, North Star etc.  They may claim they are just for a "safe space", but I've been reading what they put out for long enough to know that "safe space" is only a facade.  They are really advocacy groups to push as much and as far as possible with all things LGBT inside the Church with the ultimate end-goal of allowing homosexual sealings to take place.

Some Bishops will revoke a recommend, some will not-it just depends. Mormon Building Bridges on facebook has about 8000 members, now granted certainly all of those aren't temple attending members, but I guarantee many, many of them are.

This is simply wrong. I don't know why you have such a hang up with LGBT members. 

North Star is very explicitly in word and in deed in full harmony with the teaching and doctrine of the Church.  If you claim otherwise you need to provide evidence. 

Affirmation is an organization composed of several demographic specific groups. Some of those are for former members, some for members seeking change in the Church, and some groups that game strict rules about supporting individuals who want to remain faithful. 

I don't agree with a lot of what MBB states, but they also are clearly respectful of the Church and it's right to define it's own doctrine. 

But North Star? You're way off base there about their intent. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Sure it exists in practical reality, but in effect it is a dead letter. 

Again, I disagree.

Quote

Just like the temple recommend question about "do you support or affiliate with any groups...." in the temple recommend interview.  It's there and if someone said Yes to that question they could be denied a TR, but in effect it is a dead letter. 

I don't understand.  If a person says "Yes," they would probably be denied a TR.  So how is that "a dead letter?"  The question performs a real and effectual function.

Quote

No Bishop is going to say, hey you support or a affiliate with a group known to advocate for homosexual marriage (which is against the doctrine of the Church) and take away their recommend. 

Advocacy for same-sex marriage appears to allow for something of a carve-out.  An exception.  See here.

However, I think there are plenty of other circumstances under which this question can be answered in such a way so as to result in a denied TR.

Quote

The mechanism is still there for it to happen so it is there in practical reality, yet in effect it is dead b/c it isn't enforced. 

It is enforced.  All the time.

Quote

Common consent exists in practical reality but in effect it is a rubber-stamp that has no practical effect-it could be used for that, but it's not. 

Your concern seems to be with members who are "rubber stamping."

Quote

For example Stake callings.  Every other Sunday or so, I'm asked to sustain Brother or Sister so-and-so who is on the Stake Leadership.  I have absolutely 0 clue as to who these people are, nothing about their background, nothing about their testimony, absolutely nothing-I know absolutely 0 about them yet I'm asked to sustain them.  Why??  If the answer is that I should just have faith that the leadership prayed about it, why are you asking me to sustain someone who I don't even know and have had no opportunity to figure out if I should or should not sustain.

Hence your call for an announcement ahead of time.  I get that.

But at the end of the day, even with a week's prior notice, you'd still be asked to provide a sustaining vote, right?  How often do you think members of the Church would go out of their way to "research" individuals called into a stake calling?  Ever?  

Quote

Simple, the vote is asked for immediately. 

Would a week's advance notice really make a difference?  Wouldn't it still be likely that even after that week you would still "have absolutely 0 clue as to who these people are, nothing about their background, nothing about their testimony, absolutely nothing?"  

And as for why you are asked to sustain them, because the Church is adhering to the principle of Common Consent.  

So a week's notice would not resolve your concern.  It sounds like you want . . . a CV?  A written profession of faith from the individual to receive a stake calling?  Letters of recommendation from acquaintances?  

How do you propose to address your "absolutely 0 clue" concern?  What practical mechanisms would you propose to address it?

Quote

There is a man in a Stake Leadership position in Florida (Executive Stake Secretary), he write a blog, he is OPENLY homosexual-by open I mean totally open-he openly brags about going on SS dates-he give firesides to the youth. 

First, a stake secretary is not a "leadership" position.  An executive secretary has no keys, cannot preside, cannot conduct interviews, cannot extend or release callings, etc.

Second, if you know about this, have you notified the stake presidency of this issue?  

Quote

There is absolutely no way the membership of the entire Stake would sustain him if they actually did their homework, or maybe they would b/c the SP called him, right? 

I agree.  So why is he still functioning in that office?  

Quote

But the membership don't do their homework b/c it's not asked of them-it's "Bro. X has been called please sustain him." 

What do you mean by "do their homework?"  What are you proposing?

Your concern seems to be more about members not "do{ing} their homework," and less about the Church's usage of Common Consent being perfunctory.  If a person knows about a person receiving a calling having a worthiness issue, "Common Consent" would necessitate their casting a dissenting vote and explaining the reason for it.  

Quote

The thought is "well I don't know Bro. X, but I trust the Bishop, SP, etc. and so sure I'll sustain him".

What alternative do you propose?  What vetting procedures?

Quote

GAs and for all callings-Bishop, SP, etc.  I'd think a week should be sufficient so that if someone wanted to give the person a call and talk to them, dig a little bit, ponder, etc.  It's not an election, it's a sustaining.  If you really want to find out about the person before sustaining I think a week is good.

Okay.  But that's all?  A week's advance notice?  That's all?  

Quote

Quote

That's sort of understandable.  There's going to be some level of trust that the people receiving callings have been considered, vetted, prayed over, etc.

Totally agree, there must be some level of trust that callings have been vetted, etc.  However, the saying "trust but verify" is applicable here-it is the duty of each member to verify-that's the point of a sustaining.

Really?  There is an affirmative duty for all individual members to "vet" each and every candidate for each and every ward and stake calling?  

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  What evidence do you have a forthcoming dramatic divergence in doctrinal teachings by the leaders of the Church?

Is this a widespread problem?

Evidence . . .reading the tea leaves. I have a couple of anecdotal stories but no facts as of yet (hard to gain facts on this). 

So . . . no substantive evidence of a forthcoming dramatic divergence in doctrinal teachings by the leaders of the Church?

Quote

It just makes sense, there is an openly bi-sexual RS president in Utah,

I don't know what this means.  I don't know who you are referencing here.  And by "bi-sexual" do you mean orientation or behavior?  How do you know any of this?

Quote

this guy in florida,

Again, I know nothing about this.  Does the stake presidency know about this fellow?  The area presidency?

Quote

and just logic-the Church membership is becoming more and more diverse in its thinking which means it is going to bleed over into teachings . . .it's just natural.

I guess we'll see.

Quote

Quote

Common Consent is basically a mechanism for individuals to voice their opinion as to matters of Church governance, administration, doctrine, etc.  You are saying that there is "a lot" of discord within the Church that is being expressed online "instead ... [of] inside the actual chapels."  But why?  Nothing seems to prevent any individual from scheduling an appointment with a bishop or stake president to voice any concerns.  How is that not Common Consent?

Scheduling an appointment with a Bishop or SP? 

Yes.  How is speaking to the local representatives of the Church and registering a dissenting vote not a manifestation of Common Consent?

Quote

Big deal, that's just voicing a concern, maybe he takes it into consideration maybe he doesn't. That's not "common consent", that's simply voicing an opinion. 

I think it is nothing but Common Consent.  Each member of the Church has the right to cast a dissenting vote.  I don't think we are limited to just the formalities of callings presented during ward meetings, stake conferences, and General Conference.  

Expressing your "vote" to the local leaders of the Church is very much an exercise in Common Consent.

Quote

You can voice a disagreement and still sustain so a Bishop or SP has no clue as to how big of a deal you concern really is.

Hence the appointment with the bishop or stake president, which would allow you to explain your concern, the basis for your dissent.

Quote

The rubber meets the road at a sustaining-THAT is common consent.

Not exclusively, though.  Surely.  "Common Consent" must mean something more than just participating in the formal instances of callings in ward/stake/general conferences.

I think you are being overly rigid here.

Quote

Register an no vote and express valid reasons why to leadership and that WILL get someone's attention.

Yes.  And that can be done pretty much any time.  Just make an appointment with the bishop or stake president.

If you have "valid reasons" for a dissenting vote during a formal sustaining in a church meeting, you can raise your hand in opposition.  Surely you agree with that.  That's "Common Consent" in action.

If you initially offer a sustaining vote, but thereafter change your mind, or develop "valid reasons" for a dissenting vote, then you can meet with the bishop or stake president and notify them of that.  Surely that is "Common Consent" in action as well.

Quote

You can't change your mind and register a dissenting vote; it doesn't work like that.  You next opportunity is at the next ward/stake/general conference.  

Where did you get this idea?  Can you provide a citation to scripture or statements by General Authorities to support this claim?

There is an old legal maxim from English Common Law: "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."

Where is "chang[ing] you mind and register[ing] a dissenting vote" after having previously offered a sustaining vote forbidden?

What principle of the Gospel prohibits members from invoking "Common Consent" and providing a dissenting vote outside of ward/stake/general conference?

Quote

Now, I'm NOT suggesting people willy-nilly vote opposed.  Simply that it is a big deal and it should be taken very seriously.  It puts a good amount of actual responsibility of the Church on the individual.  You have a Bishop who goes off the rails (IMO off the rails) and invites a bunch of LGBT people in Sunday School (including ex'd members to speak), instead of just claiming it's God's will, maybe take some personal responsibility that you either did or did not do your due diligence and sustained a man who (IMO) goes off the rails, now if you sustain that action go ahead and sustain the Bishop, if you don't then make yourself heard and don't sustain him!  Don't want some creepy Bishop leering at your kids-well don't sustain a man if you get a creepy feeling around him.  

AFAICS, there is no need to wait for the next ward conference before casting a dissenting vote against the hypothetical creepy bishop.  You could make an immediate appointment with the stake president and express your concerns.

Quote

In pretty much all cases of a leader going off the rails, someone knew, or someones knew, they felt uncomfortable, uneasy, something-yet in a way to abrogate themselves from any responsibility they say "no one would have ever known!". Yet they membership sustained them-the vetting process includes the membership.

You get the leadership you deserve.

Which makes me wonder why the stake executive secretary in Florida is still in that calling (assuming his behavior contravenes the teachings of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2018 by smac97

[YJacket]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Here's this:

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

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

But he also states this:

 

Roger and I'm old-enough and wise enough in the world to understand the dynamics of what his messaging does.  I understand his intent, but the effect of the message is the following:

As long as I join an organization who isn't directly opposed to the Church or it's doctrines I'm okay.  So none of these organizations, Affirmation, Encircle, North Star, etc. none of them openly advocate against Church policy (i.e. official documents), but if you "listen and learn from" as Elder Ballard put it the actual members and what the leaders of those organizations say unofficially, it is quite obvious their entire goal is to change Church doctrine or Church "policy" that homosexuality in any form is not a sin.  So a member can in effect join an organization who is opposed but just as long as they aren't opposed in the wrong way you are good.

Sam's problem was his approach-had he started an organization for children who were abused by Bishops, had weekly meetings where they could get together as "survivors" of Bishop abuse, told them they need to "take their seat" at the Church, make others aware of the problem, etc. etc. etc. slowly pushed over time, he would have been totally cool.  Or even better yet, if he'd some how connected it to some homosexual agenda he'd definitely be totally cool b/c that's the 3rd rail that no one in leadership wants to directly, clearly and unequivocally tackle.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  There is an affirmative duty for all individual members to "vet" each and every candidate for each and every ward and stake calling?  

Perhaps we could take a page from the government and start holding confirmation hearings

[YJacket]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is simply wrong. I don't know why you have such a hang up with LGBT members. 

North Star is very explicitly in word and in deed in full harmony with the teaching and doctrine of the Church.  If you claim otherwise you need to provide evidence. 

Affirmation is an organization composed of several demographic specific groups. Some of those are for former members, some for members seeking change in the Church, and some groups that game strict rules about supporting individuals who want to remain faithful. 

I don't agree with a lot of what MBB states, but they also are clearly respectful of the Church and it's right to define it's own doctrine. 

But North Star? You're way off base there about their intent. 

Sure, I might be off about North Star, apologies for grouping them in, I don't know much about them-probably need to research them more, but I do know enough about Affirmation and MBB.  Again they officially state they are respectful of Church doctrine, but go onto their official facebook page, read the comments and posts-clearly they are not.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I agree yes, concerns about "common consent" pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance, like you said.  

But let's do a thought experiment.  What if the Leadership had used the proper mechanism to make revelation binding upon the Church-i.e. present text to the Church for a binding vote whether to accept text as doctrine or not.  What if they had done that with the Proclamation on the Family? 

You seem to be conflating "doctrine" with "canonized revelation."  For latter is a subset of the former.

There is plenty of "doctrine" that is not canonized.

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Would we be having all the discussions we are currently having over these types of issues?  Nope, not at all. 

The day may come when the Proclamation is canonized.  But there is plenty of precedent for substantial delays in canonization.  For example, D&C 137 and 138 were canonized many, many decades after they were received as revelations.  There were still revelations during those decades, just not canonized revelations.

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

B/c the Church would have voted by common consent to accept The Proclamation on the Family as binding doctrine-end of story.  People don't like it-go start your own Church.

I don't understand your point here.  Could you elaborate?

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

But we didn't

Correct.  We have not yet canonized the Proclamation.  Why is that, do you think?

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

and b/c we didn't we have endless discussions about whether it is or is not revelation whether it is or is not good.

Yes.  These discussions continue.  

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

And quite frankly b/c it's not binding on the Church, the Church could easily come out and change course 180 degrees in 40 years from now.

The Proclamation is, I think, profoundly doctrinal.  It is a summary of previously-revealed concepts, and has very little new about it (the formal recognition of Heavenly Mother would, if the Proclamation were canonized, be something of a novelty, along with the concept of gender as an eternal trait).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, it is. If Moroni was a fictional character or a delusion, then the Restoration is also a delusion. All the testimonies and statements about it that are canonized in the D&C would be false. 

I have no problem with multiple accounts. 

It's not my intent to talk you out of this way of thinking but I am grateful that my faith is no longer built on that house of cards.  For me, someone can believe in the restoration and believe that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

First, a stake secretary is not a "leadership" position.  An executive secretary has no keys, cannot preside, cannot conduct interviews, cannot extend or release callings, etc.

Second, if you know about this, have you notified the stake presidency of this issue?  

I agree.  So why is he still functioning in that office?  

 

I don't know what this means.  I don't know who you are referencing here.  And by "bi-sexual" do you mean orientation or behavior?  How do you know any of this?

Again, I know nothing about this.  Does the stake presidency know about this fellow?  The area presidency?

 

Which makes me wonder why the stake executive secretary in Florida is still in that calling (assuming his behavior contravenes the teachings of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

That is a huge assumption given the information provided. I'm highly skeptical that a Stake President is unaware of or accepting any violation of the Law of Chastity. 

I get the feeling YJacket thinks the only acceptable response to any SSA is to feel shame, repent for being an abomination, become completely heterosexual, and never ever talk about it. 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, provoman said:

Sam's main first complaint about how a violation of Common Consent occurred, as I understand his writtings, was the announcement that children of a persons living in samesex relationship could not be baptized until 18 years of age. 

Hmm.  I'm not persuaded that this was a violation of Common Consent.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Roger and I'm old-enough and wise enough in the world to understand the dynamics of what his messaging does.  I understand his intent, but the effect of the message is the following:

As long as I join an organization who isn't directly opposed to the Church or it's doctrines I'm okay.  So none of these organizations, Affirmation, Encircle, North Star, etc. none of them openly advocate against Church policy (i.e. official documents), but if you "listen and learn from" as Elder Ballard put it the actual members and what the leaders of those organizations say unofficially, it is quite obvious their entire goal is to change Church doctrine or Church "policy" that homosexuality in any form is not a sin.  So a member can in effect join an organization who is opposed but just as long as they aren't opposed in the wrong way you are good.

Sam's problem was his approach-had he started an organization for children who were abused by Bishops, had weekly meetings where they could get together as "survivors" of Bishop abuse, told them they need to "take their seat" at the Church, make others aware of the problem, etc. etc. etc. slowly pushed over time, he would have been totally cool.  Or even better yet, if he'd some how connected it to some homosexual agenda he'd definitely be totally cool b/c that's the 3rd rail that no one in leadership wants to directly, clearly and unequivocally tackle.

I agree that it was Sam's approach that got him ex'd in the end.  But, what you suggest wouldn't actually get much attention from the leaders in SLC and it most likely would not spur much change.  What Sam did actually did cause some changes to be made, IMO (some will disagree that he had anything to do with them, of course).  But he did get a message out there and many more members are aware of this issue now.  I believe there will be even more changes in the future regarding one on one interviews.  Time will tell....

[smac97]

Just now, kllindley said:

That is a huge assumption given the information provided.

Yes, it is.  I should be more circumspect.  

Just now, kllindley said:

I'm highly skeptical that a Stake President is unaware of or accepting any violation of the Law of Chastity. 

I share your skepticism.

Just now, kllindley said:

I get the feeling YJacket thinks the only acceptable response to any SSA is to feel shame, repent for being an abomination, become completely heterosexual, and never ever talk about it. 

I'm not sure what his point is/was.  I took "OPENLY homosexual-by open I mean totally open" to indicate that the fellow in Florida is violating the Law of Chastity and/or advocating and encouraging others to violate it.

I hope YJacket clarifies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not my intent to talk you out of this way of thinking but I am grateful that my faith is no longer built on that house of cards.  For me, someone can believe in the restoration and believe that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document.

I agree.  I've had this discussion with my Bishop and my Stake President (and been very honest regarding my beliefs).  What surprised me was that they agreed with a lot of what I said!  They also agreed with my feelings regarding polygamy and the SSM policy.  I've always been honest in my TR interviews and have never been refused one.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

Sure, I might be off about North Star, apologies for grouping them in, I don't know much about them-probably need to research them more, but I do know enough about Affirmation and MBB.  Again they officially state they are respectful of Church doctrine, but go onto their official facebook page, read the comments and posts-clearly they are not.

The comments are from individuals. And more antagonistic comments are moderated. 

I know for me, Affirmation or MBB are places I need to avoid to stay in a good place spiritually.  That said, I also strongly believe they serve a valuable, and even divinely appointed role in helping some people.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Sure, I might be off about North Star, apologies for grouping them in, I don't know much about them-probably need to research them more

I want to point out that I really appreciate this acknowledgement.  

I am willing to be wrong about my assumptions regarding your beliefs about LGBT members. So if you actually do have any interest in supporting and helping those of us committed to remaining faithful to the Gospel, I would highly recommend getting involved with North Star.