Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 15 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. Engaging in sex outside of marriage — regardless of reason or motivation — is inherently impure and sinful. There is nothing to excuse or recommend it. It’s not even in the same category as expecting a car as a reward for going on a mission. Illicit sex is not a good-better-best proposition. It’s a wicked, evil, don’t-even-go-there-or-anywhere-close-to-it proposition. If guilty of it, one can be washed clean from it in the blood of the Lamb, but only after unreserved, non-excuse-making, non-rationalizing penitence. And it’s definitely not cause for celebration or congratulation. 1
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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? We don’t have to keep going over it. I just thought I’d add that clarification in context of what was being discussed. Not to change your position, but to explain how others may feel about it.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t follow you. You’re changing the question, changing the requirement for temple worthiness and promoting a practice that is contrary to that of the Church.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: You’re changing the question, changing the requirement for temple worthiness and promoting a practice that is contrary to that of the Church. The reason I said I don’t follow you is that I don’t see that I have changed the question.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours 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. 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The reason I said I don’t follow you is that I don’t see that I have changed the question. The actual question is: Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom? You wrote something entirely different above and then told @etana that he/she must disagree with it based on your own interpretation.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: The actual question is: Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom? You wrote something entirely different above and then told @etana that he/she must disagree with it based on your own interpretation. Oh, I get it. What I gave was the standard definition of the Word of Wisdom given in the Church handbooks and in "True to the Faith." So I haven't rewritten anything. I've only said where a priesthood leader is likely to go when a member replies that he/she lacks understanding of the Word of Wisdom.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, I get it. What I gave was the standard definition of the Word of Wisdom given in the Church handbooks and in "True to the Faith." So I haven't rewritten anything. I've only said where a priesthood leader is likely to go when a member replies that he/she lacks understanding of the Word of Wisdom. I guess we should replace section 89 with that quote from True to the Faith. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I guess we should replace section 89 with that quote from True to the Faith. Like we recently replaced the ordinance cards in the temples? 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Engaging in sex outside of marriage — regardless of reason or motivation — is inherently impure and sinful well, it appears you don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it. Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Edited to add: The question you pose here betrays your attitude that you can’t show love and respect to a gay couple without condoning their behavior. I find this utterly wrong-headed. Well said
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well said But incorrect since I asked repeatedly for examples of other ways Scott could show love and respect and then acknowledged them when he listed them. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Edited to add: The question you pose here betrays your attitude that you can’t show love and respect to a gay couple without condoning their behavior. I find this utterly wrong-headed. I thought he was asking the question to try and understand where you drew the line of condoning, to clarify your attitudes as opposed to his own so the question will not show his complete thoughts imo. Nothing he has said imo indicates he thinks the only way to show love and respect is to condone behaviour. In fact, that seems to me to be the very opposite of what he is saying. As far as I can tell you see a certain behaviour as condoning so anyone engaging in it must be condoning. But others do not see that behaviour as condoning, so your conclusion is faulty. Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, Calm said: I thought he was asking the question to try and understand where you drew the line of condoning, to clarify your attitudes as opposed to his own so the question will not show his complete thoughts imo. Nothing he has said imo indicates he thinks the only way to show love and respect is to condone behaviour. In fact, that seems to me to be the very opposite of what he is saying. As far as I can tell you see a certain behaviour as condoning so anyone engaging in it must be condoning. But others do not see that behaviour as condoning, so your conclusion is faulty. My position that I’ve articulated here — and I’ve said it repeatedly and as clearly as I can — is that one can staunchly disapprove of gay marriage and refuse to celebrate it or offer congratulations for it, yet show love and respect for the couple engaged in it. I even rattled off a list of gestures through which one might show love and respect apart from giving insincere congratulations for and celebrating that which one disapproves of. Rockpond, on the other hand has manifested incredulity that one can show such love and respect UNLESS one attends the wedding and congratulates the couple. If he insists that doing so is not tantamount to expressing approval of (or condoning) the gay marriage, I’d call that being disingenuous.
Calm Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Rockpond, on the other hand has manifested incredulity that one can show such love and respect UNLESS one attends the wedding and congratulates the couple. That is not what he said as far as I saw (I have found I have missed some posts, so feel free to quote him saying this if he does). This is what he said: Quote 1. I don't see the the hug and "Congratulations!" at their wedding to condone their marriage any more than most of the examples you gave. Though, I understand why you feel that way given your response that the wedding ceremony specifically honors and celebrates the marriage. 2. I struggle to understand how a person can feel loved and respected by you if they know that you feel their marriage is "morally repugnant". I understand (or perceive) your sincere intent here to walk the "fine line" that President Oaks referred to in his address last Saturday night. I just can't comprehend it personally. 1: paraphrase---he doesn't believe congratulating is condoning from his POV, he gets that others see it differently. Me: He is not condemning this viewpoint in and of itself. 2: paraphrase---if someone knows you see their marriage as morally repugnant (me: the reason some, but not all people refuse to congratulate), it will be very difficult for that person to feel loved and respected (me: this could be read as implying 'even if they are loved and respected'). Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm 1
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Rockpond, on the other hand has manifested incredulity that one can show such love and respect UNLESS one attends the wedding and congratulates the couple. If he insists that doing so is not tantamount to expressing approval of (or condoning) the gay marriage, I’d call that being disingenuous. This is not what I wrote nor what I intended. I was going to re-quote my post but Calm beat me to it and she accurately paraphrased.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Calm said: well, it appears you don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it. Well, I think we come back to the fact that you purported to answer my question about whether there are other sins that it would be proper to give congratulations for, and you gave an example of a couple who engaged in sex outside of marriage and subsequently intended to care for the child that resulted. I maintain that the intent to care for the child is not the sin. If that’s what you’re congratulating them for, the you are not congratulating them for sinning. And as a practical matter, how common is it to engage in sex outside of marriage as a shortcut to parenthood? It’s typically a matter of the couple getting carried away in their passions with the baby being the unanticipated result.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: This is not what I wrote nor what I intended. I was going to re-quote my post but Calm beat me to it and she accurately paraphrased. We’re in a sorry state if it is no longer feasible to show love and respect for an individual without condoning behavior of which one disapproves or caving in on one’s own values
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: 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 ) His views are a little bit ..... different ..... than most since he is infallible. 1
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We’re in a sorry state if it is no longer feasible to show love and respect for an individual without condoning behavior of which one disapproves or caving in on one’s own values Which, of course, is NOT a position I have taken despite your repeated claims that I have. 1
Teancum Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 14 hours ago, Ahab said: Yes we know. We really do. You think we don't but we really do. And there is only so much we can do to show you or tell you or to try to convince you. 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. No you are just standing too close to me now. Back up a little bit. I have my arms outstretched but I am only trying to offer what I know to you. Shoving is actually pretty hard to accomplish online. You have some strange ideas and you are not getting those from me. Ye err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Ahab, I know the drill as well if not better than you do. I was a full active believing latter day saint for 55 years. I had what Latter-day Saints term as a testimony and promote that as knowing. Now on the other side I believe I see things more clearly now with objectivity I don't think I ever had when I operated from dogma and full on indoctrination.You may think you know and if that works for you fine. But don't expect the majority of the world to agree or be surprised when you promote your alleged truth as the ultimate truth on which all things should be judges is met with skepticism. Now that said thinking this through a bit more I do understand why you with your world view may not want to be congratulatory to someone who is entering a homosexual marriage. There was a time I felt the same way so I do understand. But I do feel it is a sad way to live your life and a poor way to view the world and the human experience.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 10 hours ago, rockpond said: I guess we should replace section 89 with that quote from True to the Faith. I guess we should throw out any concept of prophets receiving revelation to prophets after the 19th Century and leave people to muddle through as best they can, functioning on their own interpretations of scripture, however quirky those interpretations might be.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I guess we should throw out any concept of prophets receiving revelation to prophets after the 19th Century and leave people to muddle through as best they can, functioning on their own interpretations of scripture, however quirky those interpretations might be. Of course not! That's an odd suggestion. You took an entire section of revelation and pared it down to a single sentence and declared that to be the requirement for temple worthiness. That's not the requirement. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 33 minutes ago, rockpond said: Of course not! That's an odd suggestion. You took an entire section of revelation and pared it down to a single sentence and declared that to be the requirement for temple worthiness. That's not the requirement. It’s no more odd than your suggestion that we replace Section 89 with a page from “True to the Faith.” You know very well that’s not what I said. You were being sarcastic. I recognize that, and I was being sarcastic in response. To be temple worthy, we abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee and harmful drugs. This is widely and generally known, and for you to feign ignorance of it to score debate points strikes me as argumentative.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2019 Author Posted October 9, 2019 11 hours ago, rockpond said: But incorrect since I asked repeatedly for examples of other ways Scott could show love and respect and then acknowledged them when he listed them. But you then went on to imply that this would not be sufficient, that a couple likely would not accept such gestures unless one capitulated totally, caved in on one’s own moral standards and congratulated them on their gay marriage.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2019 Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: To be temple worthy, we abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee and harmful drugs. This is widely and generally known, and for you to feign ignorance of it to score debate points strikes me as argumentative. Wait... are we getting debate points? I thought we were having a discussion. I didn't feign ignorance nor do I deny that abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee and harmful drugs is part and parcel to following the Word of Wisdom. The question is "Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?" It strikes me as far more expansive than the interpretation you gave. And I think this is what @etana was trying to get at.
Recommended Posts