The Folk Prophet

Apparently you don't believe that God is unchanging then.

This, of course, is entirely outside of any point in the thread.

Was this to my point? I don't feel like this was my point.

There's more than one?

I might add that my comments, per discussion directly with her on the matter, also represent my wife's take on things.

Sometimes I think people forget that Christ is the very same being who utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for even looking back at it. And yet some seem so confident He would happily attend a gay wedding? O....kay....

Christ offended people all the time.

Dear best friend. Thank you for loving me so much that you stood by and supported me as I threw away my salvation. That support means so much. If I hadn't had it this whole going to the Telestial kingdom would be so much worse. But because of your support and love it's okay.

My opinion (may not surprise you) is just that. There is no reason to not simply align one's view with that of the Leadership. Of course, that is beyond the point I'm making to JaG, which is nothing more or less than that his comparison doesn't quite work for me.

Incidentally, I think that Elder Robbin's interpretation of the idea is spot on and that he understood perfectly well. There is a translation of a literal idea to a figurative one, sure. But is that not, for the most part, the sum of all scripture?

I'm not, necessarily, referring to the talk. It just seemed to me that the question, itself, is at the core of the OP question. The answer to the facing question does not necessarily give a concrete solution. But it could, I believe, help someone reason through the answer to the issue. The answer to the facing question should be that we ALL stand for and represent Christ to others, and not the other way around. Therefore, it strikes me, the answer to the question of whether to attend a gay wedding or not needs to center on this idea. Are we representing Christ, standing for Him, and concerned with Him and His will in our decision, or are we representing our friends, our families, and others, and trying to excuse our behavior under some guise of Christ-like behavior that may not actually be representative of Him at all? As has been discussed in the other thread, I think we all agree to a point that the Spirit might guide one to attend said wedding, and that there is no hard yes/no answer (though I, personally, believe there is a hard answer that, like the Spirit commanding someone to kill another, might have exceptions). But the points made about losing friendship or offending are not really valid if this first answer is not solidly understood. We face the way we face, regardless of offense, lost friends, broken family, etc. Within the unalterable, solid, determined stance to always face the right direction we can get into variables of specific actions. The position must be held first: I stand for God. Period. End of story. After that the specific choice(s) can be considered.

Which way do you face?

At it's core, you're comparing someone moving from one place to another (take laws out of the equation and there is no morality issue) to gay cohabitation (take laws out of the equation and it's still immoral). God's law vs. man's law. Not sure there's enough equivalency there to support the example.

Is immigration a moral issue?

Excuse me. That's a caricature. My hump is not that large!

The problem I have yet to reconcile in my own thinking and actions concerning contention is that there is, like many things in the gospel, a seeming contradiction in various principles therein. Some of these seeming contradictions are, perhaps, difficult to truly understand, but easy to act on. For example, lose yourself to find yourself. That may be difficult to comprehend, but it's easy to give up yourself and serve others (well..."easy" being a relative word...easy in theory) even if you don't understand. But in this particular case, how to actually act is more difficult. The contradictory ideas here are have no contention, of course, and defending/standing up for the gospel and for truth. One can even take this thinking to extreme scriptural examples. Turn the other cheek being the one idea, (perhaps the most extreme example being the Anti-Nephi-Lehis submitting to death) and defend your families even unto bloodshed. Of course if one literally takes defending the family as the only reason to defend unto bloodshed it's a bit easier, but the wide variety of justifiable war examples in the scriptures clearly indicates it is more complicated than that. I know there are answers from a logical viewpoint that can resolve the idea mentally -- the primary one being to follow the Holy Spirit (as in reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Spirit), but in practice it's quite a bit more messy than that. I see a great trend towards tolerance, understanding, kindness, etc. in the church and in the world. Who could possibly claim such things are problematic? Well...once more, it's complicated in practice. Of course these things are important. But when we lie down and let the enemy walk all over us in the name of kindness, is that really the best course? Moreso, when we lie down and let the enemy walk all over the gospel, our neighbors, our friends, our families, destroying them bit by bit with lies, and we say nothing in the name of turning the other cheek, tolerance and kindness, and watch with a smile on our faces as all we love is dragged to hell -- all in the name of love and kindness? And yet, on the other hand, as much as I justify a lot of the so-called "contention" I create by trying to defend the gospel, there are certainly a great many times when I have offended or spoken unkindly where I know I stepped beyond what was appropriate. Of course hindsight is 20/20. It's significantly easier to see that you've hurt someone's feelings and realize at that point, "oh...yeah...I could have said that better". But this challenge, in my mind, is a HUGE one that needs to be faced in today's world. The powers of Satan only grow -- and this means that those of us who stand as servants in God's armies must defend with even more vigor. And yet we must also do so, somehow, without contention. I have yet to reconcile how this is done.

Apparently contention is whenever I open my big yap. That defines contention. Apparently.

First a preamble: My wife and I are going on 18 years of infertility, above-and-beyond fertility treatments, and tens of thousands upon thousands of wasted dollars in pursuit of this matter. anatess, just FYI, as for the infertility thing, there ain't many out there who can hold a candle to me and my wife's level of infertility, and I still consider you a friend and wasn't offending in the least by anything you've said. If one can't have children, adopt. If one can't adopt either, then trust the Lord. He'll bless you with family as He has promised if you are faithful. There's nothing offensive in these ideas. How is it condescending? Do you doubt that you are meant to be a mother if you only remain true and suffer through this mortal probation, the same as we all must? Is it not your eternal destiny? Waiting patiently and faithfully on the Lord's timing is the answer, is it not? I expect (and I admit I'm reading into this a bit) that your sense of persecution on this is your own, and not reality. My wife and I have never been "persecuted". Whereas people do say insensitive things, my job is to forgive and forget and understand. It's our burden to bear, and to turn that burden into accusations and bitterness would harm only us. Even mothers hate Mother's Day meetings. Apparently they're offensive to everyone. But not necessary in this life. This is extreme and outside the reality of what's been said. Hurt feelings happen with any issues with which we suffer. The contention isn't that those hurt feelings don't count. It's whether they count more or less than the core teachings and focus of the church. It is my perspective that I ought to be willing to suffer hurt feelings to uphold these core important teachings. I don't believe it is proper for the church or even the culture to back off on expressing the importance of family because some of us cannot have them. The reality, char713, is that it is not the church's or the culture's responsibility to change because you are suffering. It is your responsibility to change. And that is true for every person who ever lives. It is our own responsibility to humble ourselves and to forgive and forget, to love and to serve, and to trust in the Lord and His kingdom and methods implicitly. God will take care of His church. Your job, as with all of us, is to forget yourself and go to work. And that is the only answer. Your agency, your salvation, your eternal reward, is up to you and you alone. People can be insensitive. People ARE insensitive. In response, we should smile, love, and serve them more. Focusing inwardly, being centered on self and individual trials and hurt is not what we are called to do. Judging other's instead of working to improve ourselves is exactly the wrong response to trials. Whatever trials we happen to face, we get up and we lift where we stand to the best of our ability, and we love others and do our best to uplift and help them. That is OUR responsibility individual, and we have no right to judge other's based on our interpretation of their failures. You are tending towards severe over-sensitivity. I suggest you stop worrying about others mourning with you and worry more about mourning with others -- and not just those who share in the same trial you do. There now. Does that earn me the right to the accusatory statements made about me in this thread?

I find that my 12" galaxy is much more useful and no less portable than my older 10" was. I expect, once used to it, you'll feel the same.

The RT operating system is not full windows and has serious limitations. It may not be that big of a deal if all you want to use is office (which comes build into RT). But if you want to install any other windows programs...unless they're RT specific...no go. The Pro 3 is a full on computer, just as powerful as a laptop or desktop (depending on relative specs). The top model is an i7 with 8g Ram. That's the same as my current laptop! Of course the Pro 3 costs twice as much...but still. If you want a desktop on the go, you want the Pro 3 or 4 for sure. Of course you would have no reason to get the i7. The i3 version is probably great if what you primarily do is write.

I think this is the one that's been "clarified", as some would view posting a view on Facebook as "teaching false doctrine". And such an idea well may have been considered teaching false doctrine 20 years ago, had some medium existed for publishing such sentiment. So this does, I suppose, clarify that Facebook posts don't count (though I suspect one could post in such a way and with such frequency so as to still get themselves into a disciplinary council).

I would say "some improvement tweaks" is an understatement. I would not get the 1 or 2. They are (imo) not worth the materials used to assemble them. The Pro 3, on the other hand, is a fantastic device. The Pro 4 at 14" is a very exciting theory. The downside, of course, is cost. But if you take cost out of the equation, I'd do the Pro 4 theoretically. If you're considering the 1 or 2 then I'd recommend just getting a solid Android Device instead. The Microsoft Office App for Android is much more stable and nice than on Apple. I'm writing my latest book on a Samsung Galaxy Pro 12.2. It's not perfect. I have to do some things on my PC after/before the fact. But for basic writing, it's pretty sweet. Ideally, I'd prefer a Surface...but the Galaxy was provided by my job and it's hard to compete with free.

What, do you never do laundry or something?

Yes. I am, if I were thinking it through, probably reading into what others might be reading into Elder Christofferson's comments, rather than reading into his comments myself. Although, I do suspect my presumption is right. I expect there will be many times, moving forward, where someone will use this statement of his as proof positive that supporting gay marriage is acceptable, particularly made in response to an argument from someone like me, who might contend that supporting gay marriage is a bad idea, in spite of it not getting one excommunicated.