provoman Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, DBMormon said: personal conversations with those who tried but did not complete. Conversations with Wendy Montgomery and her first hand reaching out to these families. messages from people on reddit and other places where they speak about the Church's paradigm being a leading factor in their depression and suicidality Thank you for the update
SouthernMo Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 2 hours ago, mnn727 said: I've Never seen it.I would ask if their Bishop has been informed and if so, has the Bishop asked the member to come in. I do know of one case (when I was Ward Clerk) that there was something going on that would require the Bishop to investigate more, the person was asked to come in but never would come in and eventually moved out of the Ward with no interview. The Bishop could only notate it on the persons record. SO until you claim nothing has ever been done, I suggest you find out "the rest of the story" I’ve never claimed nothing has ever been done. I’m only sharing my multiple experiences of seeing LDS couples “living in sin” who are not excommunicated.
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 5:37 PM, SouthernMo said: This does not prove your point. Your evidence could also be used to show that plural marriage was not revelation. You've actually missed my point. I said, just because the Lord reverses a policy or inspires the reversal of a policy does not mean that the policy was wrong. And plural marriage is an eternal principle that the Lord has temporarily put into abeyance -- and that doesn't make plural marriage not revelation. It makes it something that the Lord governs. You seem to have read something I didn't write. 2
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, ALarson said: Yup. Another mistake 😉 It just took longer to correct it! Ha ha. Nope. 2
Avatar4321 Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, lostindc said: how is not allowing the children of same sex partners to become members bring people to Christ? They were always allowed to be members. . i was going to say more but I’m tired of the dishonest characterization of the policy from people who should know better. If you truly wanted to know more, you would be asking the Lord rather than speaking Ill of his servants 3
SouthernMo Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, mnn727 said: And have we built the Independence Temple? Still living the United Order? just to name 2 off the top of my head. There is plenty of precedence. I almost forgot - we have the 116 pages also? Every example you gave underlined examples of how the church leaders’ were compelled by outside forces to make a change from what was revealed. Yes, change happens in the church. But it tends to come far more often from outside forces than old men waiting for guidance on their knees.
lostindc Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: They were always allowed to be members. . i was going to say more but I’m tired of the dishonest characterization of the policy from people who should know better. If you truly wanted to know more, you would be asking the Lord rather than speaking Ill of his servants Any restrictions to when they can become members? Does Jesus have this many rules to be a follower/member/whatever?
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, provoman said: Or Israel having a King, Good point as to having a king. The Lord warned them that it would be a mistake, and it was, but He let them have their way. This was brought up by King Mosiah, as follows: Mosiah 29:13 - "Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you." It is clearly an allowable principle, to have a king, or else the Lord wouldn't have allowed Israel to have one. But it is very problematic, which is why Mosiah urged a different form of government. On 4/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, provoman said: or Preisthood to all worthy males. Do you think that it was a mistake to let all worthy males hold the priesthood?
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, stemelbow said: Both were clearly wrong. as wrong as wrong could be. I disagree.
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, Jeanne said: You must mean it separated the wheat/tares...at the cost of little kids...yeah, it did. If the church isn't true, then why would you want little kids in it? Isn't the falseness of the church sufficient reason for everyone to leave it, and none to enter? 1
SouthernMo Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, Stargazer said: You've actually missed my point. I said, just because the Lord reverses a policy or inspires the reversal of a policy does not mean that the policy was wrong. And plural marriage is an eternal principle that the Lord has temporarily put into abeyance -- and that doesn't make plural marriage not revelation. It makes it something that the Lord governs. You seem to have read something I didn't write. Perhaps I did misunderstand. Would not be my first time! You seem committed to plural marriage as something God wants man to practice, but is temporarily on hold. Your paradigm conflicts with Jacob’s writings in the BOM, where God describes his ideals that plural marriage is the exception to the rule, and that he only allows it in special circumstances. Like many of us (myself included!), you are picking and choosing which “revelations” you choose to believe.
Teancum Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 11:17 AM, JLHPROF said: So much for the revelation that created the ban just a couple of years ago. So much for the reliability of revelation. This should tell you something. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: If the church isn't true, then why would you want little kids in it? Isn't the falseness of the church sufficient reason for everyone to leave it, and none to enter? I don’t want to speak for Jeanne, but I personally want the church to be the best it can be and a positive as much as it can be for every community involved in it, including the LGBT community. I want all of the above irrespective of its truth claims. 4
ALarson Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 17 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Ha ha. Nope. You don't know that. I believe it was a mistake and one that the church is still suffering the negative consequences for. 1
provoman Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Good point as to having a king. The Lord warned them that it would be a mistake, and it was, but He let them have their way. This was brought up by King Mosiah, as follows: Mosiah 29:13 - "Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you." It is clearly an allowable principle, to have a king, or else the Lord wouldn't have allowed Israel to have one. But it is very problematic, which is why Mosiah urged a different form of government. Do you think that it was a mistake to let all worthy males hold the priesthood? My post was to agree with you about apparent reversals. The post was not a commetary on whether anything was right or wrong.
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 6:08 PM, Avatar4321 said: I was wondering that myself. is there a reason not to? How will people react to that? There won't be any reason to do so. There's no sympathy for polygamous marriages out there like there is for gay marriage. And I suppose I'm "outing" myself as to whether or not this policy change is coming about because of public pressure. And what if it is? It's just a policy. The Lord showed the Prophet what would happen if plural marriage were not ended -- clearly the Lord himself is capable of being swayed by public pressure. I don't hold it against him.
hope_for_things Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 43 minutes ago, provoman said: Just and update to your post, The BYU Honor code provides - which I acknowldge BYU practices/policies do not dictate practices/policies for the Church: One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Is this an updated statement from the honor code and BYU or is this just a copy of the existing honor code?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 3 hours ago, ttribe said: I was just asking your position. Does someone else speak for you? I’ve given my position. And no one speaks for me, but it is not uncommon that others express views here with which I am in accord.
Jeanne Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 2 hours ago, JulieM said: Never-mind. Seems you’re not interested in any actual discussion, just in insulting and demeaning others and acting superior. I was really actually interested in your views but not so much now. 2 hours ago, JulieM said: Right? Hilarious! Hey, I get that he most likely has no good answers for the questions he’s getting. So he resorts to insults or put downs. I’ll just try to ignore him from here on out!!! Gives new meaning to arrogance...I am disappointed also in not getting the answers to your good questions. 1
Gray Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Of course i can, and i will, once you articulate why and how reasons stated by me and others reversing the policy now is nonsensical, and which you haven't addressed directly, coherently or articulately. I think I have, but if you can give me a specific example of what you mean I'm happy to clarify.
Gray Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 4 hours ago, alter idem said: No, it's not. The church pays out settlements all the time. And whether there are 'no ground's doesn't matter about lawsuits being filed. I think you will be proven wrong in the future, but there's no way to argue this--we'll just have to wait and see. Anyone can sue for any reason. There is nothing the church can do to stop that. Are you saying the church has now opened itself up to lawsuits on purpose? Why would they do that? 4 hours ago, alter idem said: I have to disagree with your conclusions; I still affirm that the policy was to protect the child, respect the authority of parents, protect the harmony in the home(which I provided a similar example from missionaries not teaching women who's husbands did not give permission) and as I've admitted, to protect the church. That's because I perceive the church as being an institution which truly cares about individuals, viewing them as valuable in the sight of God and I view leaders as sincerely trying to do what is right. The policy can't have been to protect the child or respect the authority of parents for reasons I already stated. In fact the policy subverted the authority of parents. 4 hours ago, alter idem said: I think, Gray, that you don't perceive the church as an institution or it's leaders with the same altruistic motives, so I don't expect we will agree. That's okay, I seem to be in the minority on this, and I'll concede that. No, I perceive church leaders to be lead by good intentions.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 3 hours ago, ALarson said: So what do you believe has changed regarding this issue over the past 3 1/2 years? I have no way of knowing, and I don’t care to speculate.
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 8:06 PM, rockpond said: Is your implication here that this "revealed" policy from 2015 was just a test to see how members would do? And what of the casualties -- those who were harmed by the policy? I'm struggling to see who was "harmed' by the policy. Let's say there were 10 or 100 who wanted to be baptized, but were told they had to wait until age 18. So they waited. Now, unexpectedly, the policy changes and they can be baptized. What "harm" have they experienced? When I was serving my mission we taught a young man of about 16 years old who wanted to join the Church. His parents wouldn't give permission. He had to wait until he hit his legal majority in his country (Germany). Was he harmed? I say not. I wanted to be baptized when I was 14. My father would not give permission. I attended church every week and was a "dry Mormon" for an entire year. After that year he relented. Was I "harmed" by the delay? I tell you that I was not. My brother joined the US Air Force at 17. He had to get our father's permission, and he got it. But would he have been harmed if Dad had decided he needed to wait? I say he wouldn't have been. So, what's the harm you claim the policy caused?
Stargazer Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/4/2019 at 8:35 PM, mnn727 said: Who? no one here. It was pretty much a non-issue. I guess if someone was looking for an excuse to leave, it was as good as any. A member of my stake with whom I had a conversation last year said that two of his children had left the church over it. But he also said that they were pretty much on the way out anyway; the policy was just the last straw.
Recommended Posts