Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, etana said: Edit: In any event, as i clearly don't understand the WoW, i can't be going back to the Temple anytime soon anyway. Don’t understand it, or don’t agree with it?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Loving children and wanting to care for them to help them grow to fulfill their potential as children of God is a gospel principle. I can recognize and approve and congratulate people for the godly principles they strive to follow even if some of the ways they stumble on to get there are less than godly or even sinful. OK, bu that’s not congratulating them for sinful behavior. Again, I ask: Do you really want to go there (see my last post)? Edited October 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
etana Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Don’t understand it, or don’t agree with it? I think my words were pretty clear. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK, bu that’s not congratulating them for sinful behavior. Again, I ask: Do you really want to go there? I have explained my POV of that question. I am not going to try and make it fit your dissection of it. If it doesn't work for you, understand as you want. Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, etana said: I think my words were pretty clear. Alas, your thinking isn’t. The Word of Wisdom requirement for temple worship is not complicated: No alcohol, tobacco, tea or coffee, and no harmful drugs. If you say you don’t understand it, it must be because you disagree with it. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: you say you don’t understand it, it must be because you disagree with it. Or he may not understand the "why" of it even if he recognizes the current official "what" list.
etana Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Alas, your thinking isn’t. The Word of Wisdom requirement for temple worship is not complicated: No alcohol, tobacco, tea or coffee, and no harmful drugs. If you say you don’t understand it, it must be because you disagree with it. Your non sequitur doesn't follow from your gross oversimplification. I'll thank you not to ascribe motives that aren't there. Enjoy your post Temple summer meat BBQ. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Calm said: I have explained my POV of that question. I am not going to try and make it fit your dissection of it. If it doesn't work for you, understand as you want. I’m just showing that it is not responsive to the question you purported to answer: “What other sinful behavior do you think it proper to congratulate someone for?” Again, loving and caring for a child is not sinful behavior; sex outside of marriage is.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, etana said: Your non sequitur doesn't follow from your gross oversimplification. I'll thank you not to ascribe motives that aren't there. Enjoy your post Temple summer meat BBQ. You are very insulting and hostile. I don’t think I desire to continue conversation with you. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Or he may not understand the "why" of it even if he recognizes the current official "what" list. But understanding the “what-list” — and abiding by it — is all that is required for temple admission. Etana declared he/she is not going back to the temple and gave as the reason failure to understand the Word of Wisdom requirement.
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m just showing that it is not responsive to the question you purported to answer: “What other sinful behavior do you think it proper to congratulate someone for?” Again, loving and caring for a child is not sinful behavior; sex outside of marriage is. If the motivation to have premarital sex is loving and caring for a child, I can recognize the godly motivation while understanding the less than perfect and indeed sinful vehicle they chose to express that godly love. People make poor choices to express pure motivations all the time, imo. 1
SettingDogStar Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Calm said: If the motivation to have premarital sex is loving and caring for a child, I can recognize the godly motivation while understanding the less than perfect and indeed sinful vehicle they chose to express that godly love. People make poor choices to express pure motivations all the time, imo. That’s kinda how it worked ancients. Often there was not ceremony, just a “consummation.” 1
etana Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Or he may not understand the "why" of it even if he recognizes the current official "what" list. I know the enhanced cherry-picked subset of requirements. I I don't understand how they reconcile with the actual text. I understand the purpose: Romans 14:21 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. I Cor 8:8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.… 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. But not why it is marketed as a metric for personal (or worse, other peoples') righteousness instead. There is more I don't understand than there is that i do, as with most things. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, etana said: I don't understand how they reconcile with the actual text. I was thinking it was probably along the lines of "why this and not that?" Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm
CV75 Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 3 hours ago, Teancum said: I agree. For me though it made me realize that practice in the LDS Church is more important than belief as long as you are not vocal about the unorthodox belief. For example at that time I said I did not know whether God,Jesus and the Holy Ghost were real. I had doubts but I hoped they were real and I hoped that the atonement was real because it is a wonderful message. For the restoration I said I doubted the BoM was historical but I loved the message. As for Joseph Smith I said I did not view him as a prophet in the traditional sense and I think he got a lot of things wrong but he started off on the right track. I viewed him as a religious leader with no more or no less inspiration than any other historical prophet or religous leader. For the current LDS leaders I said I sustained them in their role to lead and run the LDS church but that was it. I said I view the pope as having as much authority for Catholics as President Monson did for the Latter-day Saints. Even if I did not agree with them I accepted that it was their place to lead the church and not mine. I was shocked really that two times I was granted a temple recommend. Late last year my recommend expired. I have not tried to have an interview with our current bishop. I would likely answer very much the same with a few modifications. But on the obedience side I no longer do a full tithe. I do some tithing and I give a generous fast offering and to the humanitarian aid fund. But I figure I cannot say yes to the tithing question. Oh and I drink green tea now. I don’t think the Church necessarily holds that practice is more important than belief (and I think being negatively vocal is a contrary practice), but for purposes of recommends and discipline, behavior is more commonly discernible and therefore sustainable by the congregation. That is why hypocrisy is so condemnable. I think your experience shows a fairly liberal attitude toward individual belief, which I think is based in charity, compassion, the sanctity of the human spirit and helping unbelief where good faith is expressed through whatever degree of practice can be displayed (as in Mark 9:24). 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Calm said: If the motivation to have premarital sex is loving and caring for a child, I can recognize the godly motivation while understanding the less than perfect and indeed sinful vehicle they chose to express that godly love. People make poor choices to express pure motivations all the time, imo. So are you saying the desire to care for the child — and this without benefit of marriage — somehow nullifies or mitigates the sin? That’s unlike anything I have ever heard in authoritative Church teaching. Can you document that? Also, if the couple’s “pure” and only motivation is to become parents to a child, I don’t understand why they would not want the protective blanket, as it were, of marriage to facilitate that. Edited October 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So are you saying the desire to care for the child — and this without benefit of marriage — somehow nullifies or mitigates the sin? T No
etana Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Calm said: No It's really not a difficult concept, to be happy for someone's positive circumstance simultaneously with not agreeing with every step they took to get there. And it is simple to love and celebrate success without sullying that love with excess concern over the motes in their eyes. 3
MiserereNobis Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Yes. But it doesn't take much to be a Christian, at least a little bit. People don't even necessarily need to know his real name. All it takes is a desire to do good and follow those promptings that come from him. Following their own conscience, basically. Thinking in terms of the kind of person Jesus Christ is, and how to be good or more good than a person currently is, it is fairly easy for anyone to be Christian. This explanation makes your claim meaningless. Your argument is: 1) Only LDS Christians can be happy 2) Even non-LDS Christians are part of the LDS Church in some way 3) Even non-Christians are Christian in some way The conclusion is obvious: everyone can be happy. But that conclusion makes your initial claim irrelevant. Edited October 9, 2019 by MiserereNobis
MiserereNobis Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Ultimately you need to get your own assurance from God so you can know too. It takes more than understanding and believing. You need a bona fide miracle to convince you, just like I got one that our Father gave to me to convince me. This explains why I am Catholic, too (by the way, bona fide is a Catholic term... a priest's bona fides is the proof that he is actually a priest. So yeah, go for a bona fide miracle ) 2
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Alas, your thinking isn’t. The Word of Wisdom requirement for temple worship is not complicated: No alcohol, tobacco, tea or coffee, and no harmful drugs. If you say you don’t understand it, it must be because you disagree with it. Wait, Scott, you aren’t promoting a practice different than the Church practice, are you? The question stands as written. What you’ve described above (whether correct or not) is your own interpretation but it is not “the requirement”.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m just showing that it is not responsive to the question you purported to answer: “What other sinful behavior do you think it proper to congratulate someone for?” Again, loving and caring for a child is not sinful behavior; sex outside of marriage is. Congratulating a same gender couple on their marriage isn’t congratulating them on sinful behavior, it is celebrating their decision to commit to, love, and care for one another. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) Scott, an example that might help explain my view (described well by etana) occurred to me. Would you choose to congratulate someone who had just received their mission call even though their trigger to go on a mission was their parents saying they would get a new car when they got back? I am not saying someone who doesn't want to go on a mission or thinks it a waste of time, but rather someone that saw going to college and going on a committed to the work mission as equal "goods" and had up to that point chose going to college because they saw missions as requiring more sacrifice. For me that would be a "good" behaviour and not "best" or even possibly not "better" as it is lacking in a completely serving the Lord attitude in making the choice to go. The choice to go for a car is a selfish, material one and therefore that behaviour is sinful, imo, and I would tell them so if they asked. But I would happily applaud the fact he chose to go serve others and the Lord with a positive attitude and hope in time he would grow in understanding of why service is important in and of itself. Life isn't perfect. All sorts of things influence us for good and bad at the same time. We make mistakes. Sometimes we intentionally act in ways we were taught as sinful because we either don't believe it is sin for some reason or we think ends justifies the means or the sin is small God will forgive it automatically. I think there is a good chance for many of us the less than pure intents of our choices are a result of the limited understanding of mortal life where righteousness is a process of progress, not an absolute moment in time and space where everything comes together in good or evil. I also know it usually isn't my mission to judge someone's heart, so I will applauded the godly intentions I see out there and leave the condemnation of tainted with sin behaviours (and imo that is probably every behaviour we do in mortality) to God or appointed judges. Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Wait, Scott, you aren’t promoting a practice different than the Church practice, are you? The question stands as written. What you’ve described above (whether correct or not) is your own interpretation but it is not “the requirement”. I don’t follow you.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Congratulating a same gender couple on their marriage isn’t congratulating them on sinful behavior, it is celebrating their decision to commit to, love, and care for one another. But I’m opposed to same-sex marriage on principle, so I could not genuinely congratulate anyone on entering into it. Or any relationship, for that matter, that contemplated long-term and repeated homosexual behavior. But I could do other things that show love and respect for the individuals apart from their intention to engage in homosexual behavior. How many times do we have to go over this?
Recommended Posts