Leaderboard

Elective abortion is not treated as murder. That doesn't mean it isn't murder, only that it is not being so treated at the moment. It is dangerous to take open statements about policy decisions such as the one quoted here as some sort of pronouncement of eternal doctrine. Many took the policy about blacks of African descent not receiving Priesthood blessings as a statement of eternal verity or worth or something, and look where that led. The policy was correct and true, but it didn't mean what some wanted to say it meant. Same with elective abortion not being treated as murder. Same with homosexual relations not being treated as prima facie evidence of apostasy.

Hi Alay, Sounds like a pretty simple issue. 1. Don't share any of this with him while he's on his mission. Maybe mention that you're going to Utah State too, and that you guys should look each other up when you're both there. 2. When he's done with his mission and you're both there, look each other up and see what happens. Anything not on this list that you might want to do, is pretty much on the "don't do" list. As long as he's on his mission, don't flirt, no more making goo-goo eyes. It might feel right, but it is not right right now. It might be right later when he's (say it with us) not on his mission any more. Happy being patient and waiting for the right time!

It would seem to me the thing which is really being hated here is when people maliciously gossip- which should be hated because it is sinful behavior. My heart goes out for you. So, how to best love a sinner (or at least continue on with life with them in existence)? I would recommend a couple of things-- - Pray to the Lord for strength to love them as He does. Which doesn't mean being ok with their actions (Christ isn't ok with sin). But how to better love them still. - Pray to the Lord for strength for thick skin and ability to withstand this sinful whirlwind. Yes, storms suck. But Christ can give you the strength to weather any storm, including this one. I don't know the way He'll provide in this case, but trust in Him and His shelter.

In a generic/theological sense, “apostasy” is believing in, advocating, or practicing anything that is untrue or sinful; and anyone in a state of apostasy has a spiritual need to repent. But from a procedural standpoint, in matters of ecclesiastical discipline (i.e. excommunication and so on), “apostasy” has a much narrower definition. In November of 2015, guidance to local leaders from Salt Lake City informed local leaders that entering into a legal gay marriage could fall under this definition in considering whether ecclesiastical discipline ought to be administered on a Church member. The new guidance says that for purposes of defining “apostasy” in the context of ecclesiastical discipline, gay marriage is not per se an act of apostasy. However, sexual immorality and other “serious transgression” is (and always has been) a separate grounds for ecclesiastical discipline; and if a gay person engages in homosexual sexual contact—within or outside of the confines of legal marriage—then that person is still subject to ecclesiastical discipline.

I own and use a $20 timex from target. Currently worn down pretty well with humidity issues in it. I like the digital date in it. It dies about every 3 years. I go back to target and get another. Wife still loves me. ...I hope.

What does the church consider "immoral conduct in homosexual-marriage relationships" to be and how are offenders dealt with? Homosexual relationships (marriage or not) are not condoned by the Lord. All homosexual acts are immoral. The law making something legal does not change God's laws. Offenders who repent go through church discipline. Maybe apostasy only has to do with teaching/believing false doctrine? Let's use "adultery" as an example that can clarify a difference between the possible use of serious transgression without a person being in a state of apostasy. There are members who make mistakes who still fully believe in the gospel. They have sinned, a serious transgression, but remain faithful to their testimony. They go through the repentance process, church discipline, and then back to full fellowship. They have not entered into a state of apostasy due to their sin. Homosexual relations as described as "apostasy" is saying that a person not only sinned, but rejected the gospel (a falling away from truth). Now the policy is treating homosexual and heterosexual sins the same.

I have graciously allowed myself to quote myself, as follows:

Nobody has to take me seriously. It’s not my doctrine I’m speaking, though. It’s Heavenly Father’s. You’d best take Him seriously.

In the New Testament Christ is asked about marriage and divorce. He was very clear that (Matthew 19:8) "... because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." This is an example of God allowing something wrong to continue and even be dealt with administratively... It does not make it right or correct... it just means God works with us were we are. In the example others have given and even in the one being asked about in the OP the answer "... Because of the Hardness of your hearts..." seems to be enough of a reason.

The “gospel topic” essay you cite gives the sort of generalized definition used for spiritual purposes, to which I refer above. President Oaks’ talk uses the narrower definition used for administrative/procedural purposes, to which I also refer above. Engaging in a same sex marriage (celibate or not) is obviously apostasy in the common general/spiritual sense. But when we are talking about church discipline, which is imposed as a result of a specific finding such as “murder” or “incest” or “predatory activities” or “other serious transgression” or “apostasy”—it does not fall within the definition of “apostasy”. Nevertheless, it certainly remains solidly within the realm of “serious transgression”, which of course is another grounds for church discipline.

My wife was 1/2 way thru law school, while I was broke and working on Nutrition Undergrad degree. I have one ‘nice’ watch but rarely ever use it. The iphone works great as a timepiece.

Interesting that Levites did not receive a land inheritance and were left at the mercy of Israel's generosity for sustenance. And here those who were physically barred from performing their duties in the temple were still provided for temporally.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I guess my response would that priestly temple worship in Mosaic times had a very theatrical element to it—you didn’t do it primarily for your own spiritual benefit; you did it to create a spectacle for others that they would find edifying. Having a priest who was known to be physically imperfect, in that role; would be rather like having a white actress playing Aida (in Aida), or a white actor playing Jim (in The Adventures of Huck Finn), or a ripped 6’5”, 300 lb guy playing young Cosette (in Les Miserables)—it undermines the spectacle and emotional punch that the drama’s creators are trying to create.

If you search the scriptures using the phrase "Lamb without blemish" you might gain a better understanding of why the instructions given in Leviticus 21:16-21 were given. In the search I did just now, the phrase turned up 9 times, of which the following is representative: 14 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, (Old Testament | Numbers 6:14) And of course, Christ, the true Lamb of God, was without blemish - 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broke (New Testament | John 19:36)

Kinda puts a different perspective on the simple request to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament now, doesn't it? Which may, now that I think of it, be part of the point of ye olden day prescripts. And quite indicative of what a spoiled, selfish, needy, me me ME, culture we live in.

I wonder whether we’re reading it the same way. I read it as saying that people with a variety of physical characteristics/“deformities” were ineligible for temple service. Are you reading it differently?

I think it’s been pretty easy for apologists to categorize past policies as, at least, being appropriate for the time and place in which they existed. This one is harder, because as @Midwest LDS says—what has changed in the last three years, really? (Other than, the mass apostasy of featherweight Mormons who couldn’t reconcile themselves to the 2015 policy. Hmm, maybe that’s it. Maybe it was supposed to be another “Zion’s Camp”/wheat-versus-tares sort of moment . . .)

She’s got what it takes, to take what he’s got! Then again—so does the IRS . . .

Some questions are better left unasked.