rockpond Posted August 24, 2019 Author Posted August 24, 2019 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I got an official communication yesterday that parts of both handbooks had been updated. Was this topic one of the updated sections? No. There is clearly a lag on handbook revisions and communications. I received that letter yesterday as well. And, as far as I can tell, it refers to the revision labeled as "May 2019". But, while I have no means of proving this, I am fairly confident that the online handbook we had access to in May was still the "March 2019" revision. So here is what I am gathering of the process: A decision is made and then, at some point, announced. It takes several months after that to get published into a handbook revision. The handbook revision then takes several months to get published online and a letter sent out. (Note to anyone tempted to CFR -- the above is just a best guess of the process given available data. I can't prove it. Though I do spend a good deal of time in Handbook 1 as a result of my current calling.) 1
Stargazer Posted August 24, 2019 Posted August 24, 2019 3 hours ago, marineland said: Does this mean the LDS Church referred to same-sex marriage as a transgression instead of a sin because it views the participants are non-intentionally getting married or getting married in ignorance? No. I was just saying that some people like to distinguish between sin and transgression using the definition I gave. Homosexual activity is against God's law. It is on a par with heterosexual activity outside of marriage. And marriage between two persons of the same sex is not marriage, according to God's law. Regardless of what man's law might say. 1
Damien the Leper Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, rockpond said: 13th Article of Faith. Also, the covenants those men have made. These are not dishonest, deceitful men. I believe that they’ll make the handbook updates they announced, I’m just surprised that they didn’t get them into this latest revision. The leadership remains the arm of the flesh just like anyone else. Take everything they say with a grain of salt and try not to have any expectations. They in no way speak Ex Cathedra. Edited August 25, 2019 by Valentinus
rockpond Posted August 25, 2019 Author Posted August 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Valentinus said: The leadership remains the arm of the flesh just like anyone else. Take everything they say with a grain of salt and try not to have any expectations. They in no way speak Ex Cathedra. I think it’s tough to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators while having NO expectations. 1
Damien the Leper Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think it’s tough to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators while having NO expectations. I would tell them to simply do their best and then continue with life. They are not needed to be stressed about.
rockpond Posted August 25, 2019 Author Posted August 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Valentinus said: I would tell them to simply do their best and then continue with life. They are not needed to be stressed about. I think from a faithful LDS point of view (which I was trying to defend), the position you're describing is untenable. Specifically that they cannot hold the titles and authority which they claim and be dishonest. For me, personally, I am probably more closely aligned to you. I sustain these men as prophets, seers, and revelators. I hope that they will give us leadership and guidance that is consistent with the will or God and that continues restoring a fullness of the gospel. But the reality of active membership in the church for 4+ decades has dramatically lowered my expectations in that regard. However, to the specific issue of honesty (the question that began this little subthread) I do hold to the expectation that if they say they are going to do something, they will do it. And for the most part, that has been true (albeit not always in the way I may have hoped). In starting this thread and pointing out that the announced change has not made it to the handbook yet, I do not mean to suggest that it won't. Just surprised at the time it is taking.
california boy Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 2 hours ago, rockpond said: I think from a faithful LDS point of view (which I was trying to defend), the position you're describing is untenable. Specifically that they cannot hold the titles and authority which they claim and be dishonest. For me, personally, I am probably more closely aligned to you. I sustain these men as prophets, seers, and revelators. I hope that they will give us leadership and guidance that is consistent with the will or God and that continues restoring a fullness of the gospel. But the reality of active membership in the church for 4+ decades has dramatically lowered my expectations in that regard. However, to the specific issue of honesty (the question that began this little subthread) I do hold to the expectation that if they say they are going to do something, they will do it. And for the most part, that has been true (albeit not always in the way I may have hoped). In starting this thread and pointing out that the announced change has not made it to the handbook yet, I do not mean to suggest that it won't. Just surprised at the time it is taking. Maybe they are just trying to figure out wording. for "The Law of Chastity will now revert back to what it has always been. No sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. All worthy members will now be permitted to partake of temple blessings.". 🤤
marineland Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 19 hours ago, rockpond said: I don't think they are. I posted the two quotes in my signature to illustrate a problem I see in our discourse within the church. Do you mean that some members of the LDS Church believe it is in the will of God to be LGBT?
Tacenda Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, marineland said: Do you mean that some members of the LDS Church believe it is in the will of God to be LGBT? I am a member of record and I believe that most LGBTQ were born that way.
rockpond Posted August 26, 2019 Author Posted August 26, 2019 12 hours ago, marineland said: Do you mean that some members of the LDS Church believe it is in the will of God to be LGBT? While that is true, that isn’t the point of the quotes in my signature. I believe that church leaders should be leading the way in civil discourse regarding both religious rights and LGBT civil rights. I don’t think we’ve been consistent in doing that.
marineland Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 On 8/25/2019 at 10:13 AM, Tacenda said: I am a member of record and I believe that most LGBTQ were born that way. Were they LGBTQ in the pre-mortal existence too?
Robert F. Smith Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 Marcie Bianco, “Miley Cyrus' split with Liam Hemsworth isn't just celebrity gossip — it's a blow to the patriarchy,” NBC News, Think, Aug 16, 2019, online at https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/miley-cyrus-split-liam-hemsworth-isn-t-just-celebrity-fodder-ncna1042931 , Quote “ . . , heterosexuality is just not working.”..... “Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success. Heterosexuality offers women all these things as selling points to their consensual subjection.”
bluebell Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Marcie Bianco, “Miley Cyrus' split with Liam Hemsworth isn't just celebrity gossip — it's a blow to the patriarchy,” NBC News, Think, Aug 16, 2019, online at https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/miley-cyrus-split-liam-hemsworth-isn-t-just-celebrity-fodder-ncna1042931 , 🤬🤮 2
Ahab Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 On 8/23/2019 at 4:22 PM, marineland said: Why is same-sex marriage regarded as a serious transgression instead of a sin? A sin is a willful rebellion against what a person knows is good, or God's will, while a transgression is more like a violation of some rule that has been put into place with the person who transgresses only knowing that they are breaking that rule. That's why Adam and Eve didn't sin and only transgressed. They didn't know what was good or who God was, only that some person had told them that if you do this, then this will happen as a result of you breaking that rule, while somebody else told them something different. Anyway, that is basically why. People who don't realize God is opposed to same sex marriage are basically just going against what the Church teaches while thinking the Church is wrong to be opposed to it. That it is good (when in reality it isn't and they just think it is).
Ahab Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Marcie Bianco, “Miley Cyrus' split with Liam Hemsworth isn't just celebrity gossip — it's a blow to the patriarchy,” NBC News, Think, Aug 16, 2019, online at https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/miley-cyrus-split-liam-hemsworth-isn-t-just-celebrity-fodder-ncna1042931 , Any woman who doesn't see a need for a man as her life partner is about as messed up as any man who doesn't see a need for a woman as his life partner, and anyone without someone of the opposite sex as a life partner is going to miss out on a lot of good things in life. Edited August 29, 2019 by Ahab
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 40 minutes ago, Ahab said: Any woman who doesn't see a need for a man as her life partner is about as messed up as any man who doesn't see a need for a woman as his life partner, and anyone without someone of the opposite sex as a life partner is going to miss out on a lot of good things in life. If I weren't married or had kids, I actually think it'd be nice to be single. Travel when I want, get a pet if I want, (haha, inside story), be a slob if I want, not feel guilty if I'm not in the mood, have the career of my dreams and not worry I was neglecting anyone. There are tons of reason for being single!
Ahab Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If I weren't married or had kids, I actually think it'd be nice to be single. Travel when I want, get a pet if I want, (haha, inside story), be a slob if I want, not feel guilty if I'm not in the mood, have the career of my dreams and not worry I was neglecting anyone. There are tons of reason for being single! Yes I know I was single before I married. The only real difference now is that I have somebody to share my life with who makes my life even better than it was when I was without her and can open up a whole new life for me in the future. We can even make our own children, together! Forever and ever! No single person or person with only a same sex partner can do that! It takes both a man and a woman to be able to create your own child! Sure, yeah, I know, singles and same sex partners can raise other people's children in some circumstances, but they still don't have a life partner of the opposite sex to be able to enjoy all that can come from that.
sheilauk Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If I weren't married or had kids, I actually think it'd be nice to be single. Travel when I want, get a pet if I want, (haha, inside story), be a slob if I want, not feel guilty if I'm not in the mood, have the career of my dreams and not worry I was neglecting anyone. There are tons of reason for being single! There are benefits in being single and it's quite possible to be happy for years and even a lifetime without a partner, but I don't know any single person who doesn't, in the end, want a partner. They may be content with single hood and choosy about a partner, but if the perfect one came along, they wouldn't say no. And that includes me. There are a ton of downsides to being single. Be careful what you wish for. 2
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, sheilauk said: There are benefits in being single and it's quite possible to be happy for years and even a lifetime without a partner, but I don't know any single person who doesn't, in the end, want a partner. They may be content with single hood and choosy about a partner, but if the perfect one came along, they wouldn't say no. And that includes me. There are a ton of downsides to being single. Be careful what you wish for. Well okay, I'm not wishing, just saying that it's possible to be happy. But I couldn't live w/o my husband and family. Probably just need to have a life because I'm too needy I guess. I remember Calm saying something about her mother going off on camping trips by herself, hopefully Calm can verify this, and I thought wow, to be so brave.
sheilauk Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 Just now, Tacenda said: Well okay, I'm not wishing, just saying that it's possible to be happy. But I couldn't live w/o my husband and family. Probably just need to have a life because I'm too needy I guess. I remember Calm saying something about her mother going off on camping trips by herself, hopefully Calm can verify this, and I thought wow, to be so brave. Sure, you can be happy single, or not, in the same way as you can be happy or not with a partner. Being with the right partner is better than being single though. As for having a life, I know plenty of couples who do things on their own at times. I dont see why being a wife and mother precludes also being an individual, its all a matter of balance.If you want to do something you just need to decide to do it. You need to stop talking and take action. 2
Calm Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 54 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well okay, I'm not wishing, just saying that it's possible to be happy. But I couldn't live w/o my husband and family. Probably just need to have a life because I'm too needy I guess. I remember Calm saying something about her mother going off on camping trips by herself, hopefully Calm can verify this, and I thought wow, to be so brave. Yes, she spent 6 weeks or so up in the campgrounds when the snow was barely gone so to begin with it was her and the ranger and the bears. She had a little trailer and would go on day long hikes to get herself healthy, physically and emotionally. 1
rockpond Posted August 29, 2019 Author Posted August 29, 2019 20 hours ago, marineland said: Were they LGBTQ in the pre-mortal existence too? I don't think that's been revealed to us yet.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Any woman who doesn't see a need for a man as her life partner is about as messed up as any man who doesn't see a need for a woman as his life partner, and anyone without someone of the opposite sex as a life partner is going to miss out on a lot of good things in life. Unfortunately, that doesn't work out for everyone in this life, so they can at least have hope for the world to come.
marineland Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Ahab said: A sin is a willful rebellion against what a person knows is good, or God's will, while a transgression is more like a violation of some rule that has been put into place with the person who transgresses only knowing that they are breaking that rule. Do you believe same-sex marriage is God's will or is it against God's will?
marineland Posted August 29, 2019 Posted August 29, 2019 42 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't think that's been revealed to us yet. From what I have seen on the church's website, it says that everyone on earth is a spirit son or daughter born of heavenly parents in some premortal life. I am not sure if anything has been revealed about the next question but was one's sexuality determined when he was born to heavenly parents or earthly parents?
Recommended Posts