Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The cancel culture hivemind in action. On a discussion board dedicated to discussing the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one isn’t supposed to mention the downside of breaking one of the gospel’s most important covenants, the law of chastity, nor is it acceptable to discuss the upside of keeping the law of chastity. Makes a lot of sense. 

The crazy thing is... When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

Not really.  I suspect many members believe it is more likely that those who believe like them will be more likely to be persuaded by them as being of the same community, etc, plus we share the receiving of instructions from our prophets to avoid contention, etc. so it makes sense we believe other believers will be motivated to be civil as well.

And we (devout believers) would be likely less concerned with lurkers observing antis’ behaviour and therefore rejecting their arguments than we would be about lurkers observing fellow believers’ behaviours and thinking we (members in general) are hypocrites or whatever based on a few members’ behaviours.

The misbehaving of those who disagree with you can often work in your favor.  Not so when it’s someone perceived to be ‘on your side’.

Easy enough to respond to antis misbehaving (and by this I mean actual antis and not just critics or nonbelievers) by reporting them to the mods to deal with while it is better for the Restored Church for its members to behave civilly to each other and to all of our neighbour, even the ones trying to take the Church down (which is what I limit “anti” to).

Lol, I just happened to read Alma 4:10 after finishing this post.

Edited June 5 by Calm

[Doctor Steuss]

54 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The crazy thing is... When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

I don't think it's all that bizarre seeing Christians advocate for Christ-like behavior from fellow Christians.  Jesus seemed to be a wee bit more harsh on the religionists who condemned others than those that the religionists condemned.

Then again, I guess it depends on whether one self-identifies more with the allegorical vengeful Patmos fever dream Jesus, or the Jesus of the rest of the Bible.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The crazy thing is... When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows that The Nehor wasn’t trying to cancel anyone. He was responding to Smac’s statement which we have heard ad nauseum in more than one thread. I mean, give it a rest. 

  On 5/31/2024 at 2:44 PM,  smac97 said:

I am curious as to how, or if, setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity can be a helpful component of this process.

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows that The Nehor wasn’t trying to cancel anyone. He was responding to Smac’s statement which we have heard ad nauseum in more than one thread. I mean, give it a rest. 

  On 5/31/2024 at 2:44 PM,  smac97 said:

I am curious as to how, or if, setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity can be a helpful component of this process.

 

 

I actually enjoy Nehor's posts at times (he doesn't seem filled with intense bitterness that pour forth in every post) ... there are two other participants I have in mind.

We have heard Nehor's arguments ad nauseum also. You don't get to be annoyed by one and not the other, just because you agree with one side. I chided them on their exhaustive exchanges a couple of weeks ago.

[Peacefully]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I actually enjoy Nehor's posts at times (he doesn't seem filled with intense bitterness that pour forth in every post) ... there are two other participants I have in mind.

We have heard Nehor's arguments ad nauseum also. You don't get to be annoyed by one and not the other, just because you agree with one side. I chided them on their exhaustive exchanges a couple of weeks ago.

I reserve the right to be annoyed by whatever I choose to be annoyed by, lol. 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Peacefully

[ZealouslyStriving]

40 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I reserve the right to be annoyed by whatever I choose to be annoyed by, lol. 

 

 

Fair enough 🤝

[MrShorty]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

15 How do ye know of their surety?

In the years that I've been participating in groups like this, this has been a recurring theme for me. How do we determine what is right and good and true. At this point, I feel like the answer is, "You can't KNOW. You can only do your best to make a good guess." In this post, you quoted several statements about comparing teachings to scripture. While I think that is a good part of discernment, I also note that scripture is errant. For example, Elder Petersen used exactly this argument in '54 to dismiss all of the alleged prophecies that the priesthood and temple ban would some day be lifted. In his opinion at that time, there was no scriptural support for such a claim. In another post somewhere you mentioned to me Michael Ash's 4 legged stool. I forget the four things Ash included (I would guess "prophets, scripture, personal inspiration and reason" because those are four common elements in that kind of epistemology), but it seems that, even in that kind of model, each leg is potentially fallible and, thus, can lead to an errant conclusion.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is an Infinite Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.  If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This is pat, ad hoc, unreasoned, untethered, and flawed.

Isn't "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. [Marion G. Romney quoting Pres. Heber J. Grant cited in Elder Bensen's 14 Fundamentals talk]" also a kind of get out of jail free card? As much as our high demand religion hates the idea of Get-Out-of-Jail-Free cards, I think this inherent uncertainty will necessitate their use. I expect that there will be many of us like @SeekingUnderstanding and @california boy who show up at the judgement bar and realize that they had made the mistake of choosing their own sense of right and wrong over the prophets' sense of right and wrong and will only be able to offer up a get out of jail free card and hope God through Christ will accept it. I also expect there will be many of us like Pres. Oaks who chose loyalty to the prophets over their own sense of right and wrong and, when they show up at the judgement bar, will discover that they made a mistake in choosing to follow the prophet over their own sense of right and wrong and will only be able to offer up a get out of jail free card and hope that God through Christ will accept it. As much as our high demand religion hates the idea of get out of jail free cards, it seems to me they are an unavoidable, essential part of the Plan of Salvation. I wonder if it would be a better use of our time to talk about how God might decide when to accept a get out of jail free card and when He might decide to reject it.

Edited June 6 by MrShorty

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As much as our high demand religion hates the idea of get out of jail free cards, it seems to me they are an unavoidable, essential part of the Plan of Salvation.

Spot on analysis imo.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In the years that I've been participating in groups like this, this has been a recurring theme for me. How do we determine what is right and good and true.

Study, discussion, introspection, pondering, prayer, revelation.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

At this point, I feel like the answer is, "You can't KNOW. You can only do your best to make a good guess."

I think most of us "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). 

"{F}aith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."  (Alma 32:21.)

Nevertheless, the scriptures seem to indicate that "perfect knowledge" is possible.  "Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge."  (Alma 32:26.)  The Brother of Jared had "perfect knowledge of God."  (Ether 3:20.)  

In the main, though, I think you are right.  It seems that "{t}he next life holds the promise of 'perfect knowledge' or understanding (2 Ne. 9:13-14)."

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In this post, you quoted several statements about comparing teachings to scripture. While I think that is a good part of discernment, I also note that scripture is errant. For example, Elder Petersen used exactly this argument in '54 to dismiss all of the alleged prophecies that the priesthood and temple ban would some day be lifted. In his opinion at that time, there was no scriptural support for such a claim.

References?

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In another post somewhere you mentioned to me Michael Ash's 4 legged stool. I forget the four things Ash included (I would guess "prophets, scripture, personal inspiration and reason" because those are four common elements in that kind of epistemology), but it seems that, even in that kind of model, each leg is potentially fallible and, thus, can lead to an errant conclusion.

Hence the value of using all four legs.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Isn't "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. [Marion G. Romney quoting Pres. Heber J. Grant cited in Elder Bensen's 14 Fundamentals talk" also a kind of get out of jail free card?

Not really.  That's far from the only guidance we have.  And the larger quote provides more context:

Quote

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

In terms of risks, I think there is far more risk in ignoring prophets than in following their counsel.  We are not, after all, really talking about extraordinary "Jews in the Attic" conundrums.  We are looking at a broad principle that, at its extreme margins, has some exceptions to it.

Again, I have a a rebuttable presumption that I should listen to the counsel from the leaders of the Church, but that circumstances may arise in which a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  If so, the presumption is "rebutted," and I am under no obligation to acquiesce to such remarks.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As much as our high demand religion hates the idea of Get-Out-of-Jail-Free cards, I think this inherent uncertainty will necessitate their use.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I expect that there will be many of us like @SeekingUnderstanding and @california boy who show up at the judgement bar and realize that they had made the mistake of choosing their own sense of right and wrong over the prophets' sense of right and wrong and will only be able to offer up a get out of jail free card and hope God through Christ will accept it.

I hope this happens.  C.S. Lewis examines this in The Last Battle, both with with the Calormen, Emeth, and with "one of those very Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Horses" nevertheless coming through the Stable Door, and - contrastingly, with the skeptical dwarfs who let their anger predominate, to their own injury and harm.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I also expect there will be many of us like Pres. Oaks who chose loyalty to the prophets over their own sense of right and wrong and, when they show up at the judgement bar, will discover that they made a mistake in choosing to follow the prophet over their own sense of right and wrong and will only be able to offer up a get out of jail free card and hope that God through Christ will accept it.

We'll see, I suppose.  Again, I think there is far more danger is ignoring/disobeying prophets than in listening to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

20 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The crazy thing is... When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

The crazy thing is I expect followers of Christ to be more Christlike than those who are anti.  

In reality, when I started to have faith struggles it was those who were compassionate and understanding of others that helped me see things from a faithful perspective.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Rain said:

The crazy thing is I expect followers of Christ to be more Christlike than those who are anti.  

In reality, when I started to have faith struggles it was those who were compassionate and understanding of others that helped me see things from a faithful perspective.  

There is a difference between those truly struggling in their faith and those who have turned to bitter opposition - and in the way we respond to them. Using kids gloves with those spewing constant vitriol just let's them know they can say whatever lies, hyperbole, innuendos they want and we won't defend ourselves. As with wildfires, sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary.

[longview]

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows that The Nehor wasn’t trying to cancel anyone. He was responding to Smac’s statement which we have heard ad nauseum in more than one thread. I mean, give it a rest. 

It seems Nehor frequently engages in savage character assassinations against people who do not comply with his favored narratives. A recent example is Riley Gaines.

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

  On 5/31/2024 at 2:44 PM,  smac97 said:

I am curious as to how, or if, setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity can be a helpful component of this process.

smac97 has some powerful insights of the Law of Chastity as it applies to reaching the top degree within the Celestial Kingdom. It is the ultimate reality. Those who vehemently disagree with smac97 may actually be putting themselves in the position of many pagans described in the Old Testament who worship the "creation" but deny the "creator" by using other substitutes.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There is a difference between those truly struggling in their faith and those who have turned to bitter opposition - and in the way we respond to them. Using kids gloves with those spewing constant vitriol just let's them know they can say whatever lies, hyperbole, innuendos they want and we won't defend ourselves. As with wildfires, sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary.

People who are struggling, people who have left and are still friendly with the church, people who have left and are not happy with the church and people who are anti all read the words of members of the church on this board. You can be like Christ, who was both firm and loving, without fire. When you light a fire the neighbors house comes in danger as well. Ultimately the goal of apologetics is to keep members and get new members, not to fight antis. 

 

Edited June 6 by Rain

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

As with wildfires, sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary.

Using nature analogies to justify human behaviour is not always appropriate. I don’t believe Jesus ever told us we should look on our brothers as nonhuman, not a child of God.  Violence begets violence, whether physical or verbal.  I have never seen *** for tat stop any critic from criticizing and in the majority of cases on the board, it just increases the repetition of the criticism.

Plus this board has moderators so you don’t have to be the one to stamp out the flames.  From what I have seen of this board compared to other places with self appointed moderators, we do much better with more civility and the true antis don’t last long.

Edited June 6 by Calm

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

References?

Elder Petersen's '54 talk to church educators 8th paragraph from the end: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Mark_E._Petersen/Race_Problems_-_As_They_Affect_the_Church

Quote

Well, what about the removal of the curse? We know what the Lord has said in the Book of Mormon in regard to the Lamanites—they shall become a white and delightsome people. I know of no scripture having to do with the removal of the curse from the Negro. I think that we should not speculate too much about that. As long as the scriptures are silent on the subject, we should not speculate too much about that. As long as the scriptures are silent on the subject, we should not try to determine on our own what the ultimate end of the Negro is going to be. I don’t think we have a right to do that, do you? It is speculation.

We do have a few suggestions from the early brethren as to their own views, but I assume that these are their own private ideas–I don’t know whether I am wrong in that, President Smith, but that has been my assumption that when the brethren spoke about the removal of the curse from the Negro, they were expressing their own views. But there is no scripture on it, and therefore, I don’t think any of us, as teachers of the gospel, should speculate on it.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have a a rebuttable presumption that I should listen to the counsel from the leaders of the Church, but that circumstances may arise in which a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  If so, the presumption is "rebutted," and I am under no obligation to acquiesce to such remarks

Agreed. The devil is in the details of exactly how one rebuts teachings of the church and its leaders, but I, too, retain the option of choosing when something that the brethren claim is revelation is not revelation. Does that make us both "cafeteria Mormons?"

[ZealouslyStriving]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Using nature analogies to justify human behaviour is not always appropriate. I don’t believe Jesus ever told us we should look on our brothers as nonhuman, not a child of God.  Violence begets violence, whether physical or verbal.  I have never seen *** for tat stop any critic from criticizing and in the majority of cases on the board, it just increases the repetition of the criticism.

Plus this board has moderators so you don’t have to be the one to stamp out the flames.  From what I have seen of this board compared to other places with self appointed moderators, we do much better with more civility and the true antis don’t last long.

Prelude: The following is not as angry as the words may come across in written communication...

There is one poster in particular that regularly issues personal insults, yet he is able to continue here and I have never seen him reprimanded by yourself or others who have a propensity to upbraid the more traditional posters. Whereas, a while back, I shared, using scripture, the almost word for word similarities between another poster words and Korihor and was threatened with being reported. 
I admire your desire to make those in a faith crisis feel comfortable, but I believe you have taken it too far in some instances. If an intruder kicks in your door and threatens your family, you don't give him the keys and walk away.

🪙🪙

🫶

Edited June 6 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Elder Petersen's '54 talk to church educators 8th paragraph from the end: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Mark_E._Petersen/Race_Problems_-_As_They_Affect_the_Church

 

Agreed. The devil is in the details of exactly how one rebuts teachings of the church and its leaders, but I, too, retain the option of choosing when something that the brethren claim is revelation is not revelation. Does that make us both "cafeteria Mormons?"

Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Pres. Brigham Young "it will be removed" > Never P/S/R Pres. Mark E. Peterson "won't be removed".

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Elder Petersen's '54 talk to church educators 8th paragraph from the end: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Mark_E._Petersen/Race_Problems_-_As_They_Affect_the_Church

Agreed. The devil is in the details of exactly how one rebuts teachings of the church and its leaders, but I, too, retain the option of choosing when something that the brethren claim is revelation is not revelation. Does that make us both "cafeteria Mormons?"

I'm not going out of my way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

@ZealouslyStriving Pulling rank? I agree that rank means something when it comes to deciding what the church does and does not believe. However, according to the oft quoted "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" document, apostles must in some way reaffirm what prophets say in order for it to rise to the level of "Mormon doctrine." When there is disunity in the upper quorums or contradicting opinions, that is evidence that the question is undecided.

How do you decide when a prophet's teachings should override an apostle's teachings and when does the lack of unity indicate that the question is undecided?

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

When there is disunity in the upper quorums or contradicting opinions, that is evidence that the question is undecided.

Ding, ding, ding, ding... 🔔

So the haters here need to quit saying that we taught as doctrine the opinions put forth by individual apostles about the Priesthood ban.

There is no, no has there ever been, disunity about the Law of Chastity as it concerns anything other than heterosexual marriage unions- so the matterr IS decided.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, longview said:

It seems Nehor frequently engages in savage character assassinations against people who do not comply with his favored narratives. A recent example is Riley Gaines.

smac97 has some powerful insights of the Law of Chastity as it applies to reaching the top degree within the Celestial Kingdom. It is the ultimate reality. Those who vehemently disagree with smac97 may actually be putting themselves in the position of many pagans described in the Old Testament who worship the "creation" but deny the "creator" by using other substitutes.

As Smac is fond of saying- reasonable minds can disagree. Have a good day:) 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Prelude: The following is not as angry as the words may come across in written communication...

There is one poster in particular that regularly issues personal insults, yet he is able to continue here and I have never seen him reprimanded by yourself or others who have a propensity to upbraid the more traditional posters. Whereas, a while back, I shared, using scripture, the almost word for word similarities between another poster words and Korihor and was threatened with being reported. 
I admire your desire to make those in a faith crisis feel comfortable, but I believe you have taken it too far in some instances. If an intruder kicks in your door and threatens your family, you don't give him the keys and walk away.

🪙🪙

🫶

If I have nannied someone in the past and the behavior doesn’t change, I will just report them and keep my mouth shut.

Then there are those who I skip reading once the meanness or *** for tat starts because it’s repetitive and who cares any more and others who I have adjusted to because I know that they are in the middle of processing stuff.  Newbies tend to get more attention because I have hope.

I tend to be a lot less bothered in the sense of offended of those who I know have been faithful members because I see them as adjusting to a new norm and sometimes that means letting anger or pain show.  I am bothered by seeing them hurting. Most in my experience stop being abrasive (as long as they weren’t abrasive as a believer as well).  There is a big difference between meanness that comes from pain and meanness that comes from arrogance or a sense one needs to be a warrior with a mission to silence attackers etc (which to me is a form of arrogance actually) for me. And I admit I may be misreading the emotion behind the mean behavior, but I think it’s a worthy risk. 

Edited June 6 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Hence the value of using all four legs.

 

Just thinking out loud here...

If each of the legs of the stool were only sightly better than a coin flip at discerning the "right" side of an issue (say 55%), then the chance that ALL FOUR of them are wrong about a given issue is only 4.1%.  And I think the odds are way better than a coin flip for each of these four legs.  And once they hit 70% reliability, then the chance of all of them leading me wrongly is less than 1%, and at 80% that chance is just over one-tenth of one percent.  

Even though the tools in the toolbelt are less than perfect, using them all together compounds our ability to get things right.  

Edited June 6 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:35 PM, teddyaware said:

The cancel culture hivemind in action. On a discussion board dedicated to discussing the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one isn’t supposed to mention the downside of breaking one of the gospel’s most important covenants, the law of chastity, nor is it acceptable to discuss the upside of keeping the law of chastity. Makes a lot of sense. 

So cancel culture is asking someone to stop harping on the same point over and over again. Somehow I cancelled smac? Then how is he still talking?

And how is cancel culture so powerful if the people complaining about it are so pervasive and LOUD about it? Where are the mass cancellings?

 

Oh right, yeah. That.