Chum Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: If the church and the members just stand aside, we are under condemnation for not standing for the right. IIRC, this is the part where we put on our big-boy pants. At least I hope that's why I'm wearing them. Edited January 7, 2022 by Chum 1
sunstoned Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 25 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I believe winning or losing really was not the point. We are to stand for Christ and the gospel in all times and places win or lose. If the church and the members just stand aside, we are under condemnation for not standing for the right. If we stand for the right and lose, that is ok. The sin is not on our head. If society accepts unrighteous things after been warned, they have no excuse when the judgements come. Some have said the church was on the wrong side of history when it opposed same sex marriage. I don’t see it that way. The only ones that are on the right side of history is the side the Lord allows to remain on the earth. At some point, the Lord will clean house. I think there would be many that would argue that opposing others right to marry is not standing for Christ as there is nothing in the scriptures that links Christ to such a thing. IMO there is no moral high ground here at all. Regrettably (and I mean this sincerely) coming down on the right side of history is something that has happened quite infrequently in the church's history. 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: I think there would be many that would argue that opposing others right to marry is not standing for Christ as there is nothing in the scriptures that links Christ to such a thing. IMO there is no moral high ground here at all. Regrettably (and I mean this sincerely) coming down on the right side of history is something that has happened quite infrequently in the church's history. All I will say is when one is one the right side of Christ and the commandments, they will in the end be on the right side of history. When one is on the wrong side of Christ, they will end up on the wrong side of history in the end. That is because it is impossible to rebel against God and win. One either has to repent and submit to God or not repent and get cast out. God never loses an argument or debate. 1
StandForever Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 Can anyone ever be certain if the church is on the "right side"? It was clearly on the wrong side when it restricted blacks from the priesthood. It was on the wrong side when it required women to pledge obedience to their husbands. It seems that any "law" is subject to change. So how can anyone be certain the position on transgender in the current Handbook is correct?
StandForever Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 Regardless of a church's position on the organizational status of transgender, whether it is LDS, conservative evangelical, liberal protestant, or Roman Catholic, I have never encountered a church that teaches anything other than Christian love towards everyone, transgender or otherwise. I have heard that there are exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions. And in my mind any church that teaches hate, or even personal bias, between individuals is rejecting Christ and his teachings. Even when there are theological or doctrinal disagreements between people, we are taught in the Bible to love and respect one another.
Chum Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, StandForever said: I have never encountered a church that teaches anything other than Christian love towards everyone, transgender or otherwise. By encountered, do you mean like in person or that you have never heard of one?
pogi Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, StandForever said: Can anyone ever be certain if the church is on the "right side"? Welcome to the board! Can anyone be certain of anything, other than how we feel? I don't think so. We rely on faith in mortality and see through a glass darkly. We can apply Alma 32 and have some assurances that way. But faith is still required. Edited January 7, 2022 by pogi 2
StandForever Posted January 8, 2022 Posted January 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Chum said: By encountered, do you mean like in person or that you have never heard of one? The verb encounter was a bad word choice on my part, and it is not exactly what I meant. A better word choice would be to observe either directly or indirectly. I meant that in: - in all my in-person experiences in attending churches of all of these denominations, - talking to members and leaders of these denominations, - visiting them on the internet, - reading articles about them, and - receiving information about them through other media I have never observed a church that teaches anything other than Christian love towards everyone, transgender or otherwise.
Chum Posted January 8, 2022 Posted January 8, 2022 39 minutes ago, StandForever said: The verb encounter was a bad word choice on my part, and it is not exactly what I meant. A better word choice would be to observe either directly or indirectly. I meant that in: - in all my in-person experiences in attending churches of all of these denominations, - talking to members and leaders of these denominations, - visiting them on the internet, - reading articles about them, and - receiving information about them through other media I have never observed a church that teaches anything other than Christian love towards everyone, transgender or otherwise. Works for me.
StandForever Posted January 8, 2022 Posted January 8, 2022 15 hours ago, pogi said: Welcome to the board! Can anyone be certain of anything, other than how we feel? I don't think so. We rely on faith in mortality and see through a glass darkly. We can apply Alma 32 and have some assurances that way. But faith is still required. Thank you for the welcome and for your thoughts on faith. I agree with your position that we depend on faith more than we may realize. A lot of what we think we know is really only faith in what we have heard from others. But I don’t agree that we are without knowledge on everything. Alma 32 indicates that we can have knowledge and we can have faith. Faith itself is not necessarily independent of knowledge. When faith is independent of knowledge, then it is only blind faith, and it is indeed based entirely on feelings. And feelings are often based on our inner desires, passions, temptations, and biases. According to the Bible, our feelings are not trustworthy, and therefore not useful in discerning truth. He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. (Proverbs 28:26; see also Jeremiah 17:9 & Luke 12:34) On the other hand, faith that is built upon knowledge is rational faith. The apostle Paul directs us to “test everything”. And regarding feelings, the apostle John wrote “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” The apostle Peter instructs us to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason” for your faith. In his original Greek, the word answer means logical answer, and the word reason means logical reason. In a criminal court of law, a jury listens to testimonies and evidence and reaches an informed verdict based on that information. Such decisions are often (and perhaps always) based on faith. But it is informed faith “beyond a reasonable doubt”. A jury decision should not be based on blind faith, relying on feelings alone. A jury does not simply reach their decision based on warm feelings.
MacGyver Posted January 8, 2022 Posted January 8, 2022 On 1/4/2022 at 6:14 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: Not a fallacy if it’s done intentionally. I am calling Latter-day Saints hypocrites if they both wish for the world to eschew the label “Mormon” while refusing to address someone by their preferred pronouns, and complaining about the world run amok in political correctness. I wasn’t saying anything about the merits of the argument, only that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Be careful painting with a broad brush. I have zero problem with anyone referring to me as a Mormon or my faith as Mormonism. And I have a huge problem with Webster redefining words to make them more PC. A phobia is a fear of something. If someone is transphobic they are afraid of people who identify as transgender. I'm not afraid of transgender people nor I am I afraid of not being PC. I call it like I see it. Transgenderism is unnatural and harms the person. I believe it is a deception of the devil. Depression and suicide rates are off the charts for these people, especially for those who physically transition. If I love these people, then I have a duty to give it to them straight or remain silent. But I will not condone behavior that I consider to be destructive and harmful to the individual and society.
Recommended Posts