Tacenda Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 4 hours ago, alter idem said: So a 64 year old married man with 5 children divorces his wife and leaves the church. And he puts in on facebook and thinks it's not going to get out. I think if he wanted to inform his family, he should have contacted them not through facebook. He may have wanted it to be somewhat public, just in case rumors started and to get ahead of them.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, ttribe said: Spare me your indignance. The context doesn't help, at all. It only succeeds in tying the teaching back to an equally horrendous Old Testament teaching. It has nothing to do with the point at hand. That kfisher naively gobbled up FAIR's explanation is no concern of mine. It’s a pattern I’ve observed over the years: “Anybody who doesn’t agree with me is naive and gullible.” Again, it’s a sad thing to watch. 1
Tacenda Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Elizabeth is a bit of a hero. Someone who endured what she did, not only healed, but then sought to publicly help people by putting herself in the spotlight, starting and running a foundation in her name, going on speaking tours, etc. Not everyone who has been sexually assaulted does that. Correction - almost nobody who has endured such a trauma seeks and invites the spotlight. I'm a fan. I am as well, and have read both her book and Ed & Lois's book.
smac97 Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: Do you mean to tell me, you can't come up with a single example of a teaching, taught repeatedly, for a "long time", later being changed or abandoned? Not one? I suppose you are referencing the Priesthood Ban, which lacked a revelatory provenance, but for which some leaders nevertheless posited explanations that were later rejected/disavowed. Yes, I'll acknowledge that one. But I think this is a very weak limb for you to climb out on. You are positing that we should look at the exception, not the rule. You want the exception to swallow the rule. Nevertheless, I'll bite. In your view, the doctrinal basis for overturning all of scriptural and prophetic counsel we have received about the Law of Chastity, and legitimizing homosexual behavior would be . . . what? And would that basis also support the legitimization of adultery? Fornication? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac 2
ksfisher Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Perhaps you should point that out to Elder Anderson. Frequently teaching something that is wrong for a long time does not make it true or right. Asserting frequency and length of time as evidence of truth and correctness is fraught with pitfalls. THAT IS MY POINT. When God has chosen to modify, do away with, or otherwise change doctrine, teachings, practices, or policies of the church He has done so through the voice of His prophets and apostles. If the law of chastity is to change in the future I am confident that He will reveal His will though the same pattern. Until that time I believe we are under command to follow the law as He has chosen to reveal it to us. Edited August 16, 2019 by ksfisher sp 3
ttribe Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I suppose you are referencing the Priesthood Ban, which lacked a revelatory provenance, but for which some leaders nevertheless posited explanations that were later rejected/disavowed. Yes, I'll acknowledge that one. But I think this is a very weak limb for you to climb out on. You are positing that we should look at the exception, not the rule. You want the exception to swallow the rule. Nevertheless, I'll bite. In your view, the doctrinal basis for overturning all of scriptural and prophetic counsel we have received about the Law of Chastity, and legitimizing homosexual behavior would be . . . what? And would that basis also support the legitimization of adultery? Fornication? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac Why is this hard? I'm not arguing in favor of "overturning" anything. I'm pointing out the folly in using frequency and length of time taught as the primary evidence of said teaching's truth or correctness. I'm not the one on the limb; you and Elder Anderson are. Oh, and for the record counselor, the Priesthood Ban was not the first thing that came to my mind. I can establish a decent que of said teachings before I even get to the Priesthood Ban. ETA: As an aside, I'm quite sure there are number of your fellow defenders who would take issue with your characterization of the lack of revelatory provenance of said ban. But, I digress... Edited August 16, 2019 by ttribe
ttribe Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: When God has chose to modify, do away with, or otherwise change doctrine, teachings, practices, or policies of the church He has done so through the voice of His prophets and apostles. If the law of chastity is to change in the future I am confident that He will reveal His will though the same pattern. Until that time I believe we are under command to follow the law as He has chosen to reveal it to us. If your faith sustains you in following that pattern, more power to you. It doesn't work that way for everyone.
Tacenda Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: Didn't the Church already go through this cycle of so many rules and regulations that many during the time of Christ just couldn't deal with it. How many steps allowed on the Sabbath, not picking corn on the Sabbath, not stitching a button on a jacket. The list was endless as it is today. Members of the Church have this idea that God really cares if someone drinks coffee or tea or has a tattoo or a perching or vapes. Maybe it is just me, but I thought Christ was way more interested in a change of heart. Of how we treat others. How we serve. What goodness there is in us. Church leaders need to reread Mathew 25 again. Do you see God concerned about whether someone worrying about all the countless rules the Church puts on it's members so they can judge themselves as doing the will of God? I think that is your point. Arbitrary rules are not leading people to the fundamental message and mission of Christ. But hey, no one is drinking coffee. Church members must be righteous. Right? So true, it seems Joseph Smith wanted to restore much of things Jesus put away sometimes, but that's my opinion of course.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, ttribe said: ETA: As an aside, I'm quite sure there are number of your fellow defenders who would take issue with your characterization of the lack of revelatory provenance of said ban. But, I digress... I don’t think so. Smac is quite right. Provenance means a written record. There is no extant written record of the ban being mandated by revelation. Doesn’t say that it didn’t stem from revelation, only that there is no written record of such. Edited August 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
smac97 Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: Why is this hard? I'm not sure what youmean. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm not arguing in favor of "overturning" anything. Others are. And you chimed in. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm pointing out the folly in using frequency and length of time taught as the primary evidence of said teaching's truth or correctness. I don't see the folly. The Law of Chastity is in the scriptures. It's in untold numbers of talks given by prophets and apostles. Moreover, the "primary evidence" of the "truth or correctness" of the Law of Chastity is not what you suggest. For me, the three-fold method for discerning spiritual and doctrinal truths is A) studying the words of past prophets and apostles B) studying the words of modern prophets and apostles, and C) seeking confirmation of my assessment of these things through the Spirit. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm not the one on the limb; you and Elder Anderson are. Hard to say, really. You are not offering any reasoned position for us to review. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: Oh, and for the record counselor, the Priesthood Ban was not the first thing that came to my mind. Well, you were playing coy, so I guessed. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: I can establish a decent que of said teachings before I even get to the Priesthood Ban. I'm okay with that. 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: ETA: As an aside, I'm quite sure there are number of your fellow defenders who would take issue with your characterization of the lack of revelatory provenance of said ban. But, I digress... Well, I'm certainly open to correction. So where is it? What was the "revelatory provenance" for the priesthood ban? Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: huh? I thought you suggested something about the church judging gay people who act. I'm not sure why you got acting out of ths. what act? No, I suggested people leave when they want to act on same sex attraction. It is not reconciliable with the teachings of the church. I am trying to imagine what would happen if I went into Bishopric meeting late on Sunday morning and explained I was out on a date last night and slipping in that it was with a guy. How would bishop and his counselors react? Now I am tempted to do it just to see how long I could keep a straight face. 1
ksfisher Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 51 minutes ago, ttribe said: If your faith sustains you in following that pattern, more power to you. It doesn't work that way for everyone. So what signals or communications from God should I be looking for? If, in the past, He revealed His will through His prophets (see Amos 3:7) why not today? If the law of chastity were to change by what means would He use to let His children know? 2
The Nehor Posted August 16, 2019 Posted August 16, 2019 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: So what signals or communications from God should I be looking for? If, in the past, He revealed His will through His prophets (see Amos 3:7) why not today? If the law of chastity were to change by what means would He use to let His children know? Gay pride parades?
Jeanne Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 39 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Gay pride parades? Is this a snide remark??
The Nehor Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 Just now, Jeanne said: Is this a snide remark?? From me??? Of course not!!! Okay yeah, a bit. 1
Danzo Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 All I see is someone who left his wife because he isn't attracted to her anymore and is attracted to someone else. Sad, but nothing new 2
strappinglad Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Now I am tempted to do it just to see how long I could keep a straight face. I see what you did there.... even though it may have been unintended .
Popular Post rockpond Posted August 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 17, 2019 Wow did this topic explode... 6 pages in 10 hours! It's a terribly sad situation. I hope that the Brethren are taking note. This is part of the problem with our teachings on this: With no great option for faithful gay and lesbian members, many will choose to enter into a mixed orientation marriage. And many of those marriages will end in divorce. Homes, lives, and hearts are torn apart. Current teachings have improved but we still have a long way to go. 5
The Nehor Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 31 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I see what you did there.... even though it may have been unintended . It was at first but I caught it as I typed it and giggled.
alter idem Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 41 minutes ago, rockpond said: Wow did this topic explode... 6 pages in 10 hours! It's a terribly sad situation. I hope that the Brethren are taking note. This is part of the problem with our teachings on this: With no great option for faithful gay and lesbian members, many will choose to enter into a mixed orientation marriage. And many of those marriages will end in divorce. Homes, lives, and hearts are torn apart. Current teachings have improved but we still have a long way to go. What are the 'brethren' supposed to do about a bisexual man who marries, supposedly happily enough to have five children and then in his 60's decides to leave his wife. In my opinion, claiming to be 'gay' is to gain sympathy, and it sure seems to be working. His family has my sympathy, he's made choices, and when those choices make his miserable, then he'll get my sympathy. 4
MustardSeed Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, alter idem said: What are the 'brethren' supposed to do about a bisexual man who marries, supposedly happily enough to have five children and then in his 60's decides to leave his wife. In my opinion, claiming to be 'gay' is to gain sympathy, and it sure seems to be working. His family has my sympathy, he's made choices, and when those choices make his miserable, then he'll get my sympathy. Bisexuals get no sympathy for me. Sorry.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted August 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danzo said: All I see is someone who left his wife because he isn't attracted to her anymore and is attracted to someone else. Sad, but nothing new Precisely. I find it breathtaking that we've reached the point of dressing up bog-standard infidelity as something noble and life-affirming. Edited August 17, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 6
JulieM Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Precisely. I find it breathtaking that we've reached the point of dressing up bog-standard infidelity as something noble and life-affirming. How do you know he’s cheating on his wife or that it’s not her that wants to have a different type of relationship? I haven’t read everything here, but do you know there’s infidelity involved? 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: How do you know he’s cheating on his wife or that it’s not her that wants to have a different type of relationship? I haven’t read everything here, but do you know there’s infidelity involved? Violating commitments and covenants is, by definition, infidelity. I'm in no position to speak to the details of this individual case, but are you really going to contend that we haven't reached the point where people celebrate a man who says he isn't attracted to his wife and therefore walks away from his marital covenants ... just so long as he claims he's attracted to men? Edited August 17, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 3
JulieM Posted August 17, 2019 Posted August 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Violating commitments and covenants is, by definition, infidelity. Ok, but do you know that Ed Smart has done that? What if this is what both he and Lois have decided together? We don’t know enough (from the little I’ve read) to accuse him of infidelity. Unless you know more? ETA: And to the rest of your post, who has been celebrating here about this news? Edited August 17, 2019 by JulieM 4
Recommended Posts