paulsifer42
-
Posts
177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by paulsifer42
-
-
I've met Calvinists who are thoughtful, missionary-minded, and who realize that even if God chooses who will be redeemed (their belief, not mine), they are still responsible to be responsible. That is, they represent Christ. There is none of the cavalier, "I might as well have fun with this, since it doesn't really matter" attitude--none in any I've met.
Vort is right. WBC is a one-family religious sect that writes and behaves with a tabloid, cartoonish theology. The write prolifically, but with very little depth, imho. Objectively, they represent only themselves.
Oh, I didn't mean to say all Calvinists were rude like the WBC, just saying their theology allows for that. Those who are kind are kind because they want to be. From what I've seen, the WBC family would love rattling people's cages whether they subscribed to Calvinism or not.
-
Oh, it's not 'always' if your giving a talk in sacrament meeting, or speaking to some other large crowd. And I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'always' in one-on-one settings, but it is a great majority of the time. And the reason why that is: Because, in our theology, it will ultimately matter how we are received, at least for the person doing the receiving, so we should, nearly always, try to understand first, so we are received better, so the person might actually change, as opposed to walking away with one more experience to support the 'Christians are nothing but judgmental, closed-minded, bigots.' Which, I think we can all agree isn't helpful.
Can you all see that awesome run-on sentence? Man, that's nice.
-
To clarify my question paulsifer...I'm asking why "always". Not just why. I understand perfectly well why. I'm questioning the "always" part of it.
Oh, it's not 'always' if your giving a talk in sacrament meeting, or speaking to some other large crowd. And I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'always' in one-on-one settings, but it is a great majority of the time. And the reason why that is: Because, in our theology, it will ultimately matter how we are received, at least for the person doing the receiving, so we should, nearly always, try to understand first, so we are received better, so the person might actually change, as opposed to walking away with one more experience to support the 'Christians are nothing but judgmental, closed-minded, bigots.' Which, I think we can all agree isn't helpful.
-
The point: The WBC is Calvinist. Meaning they believe those who will be 'saved' have already been chosen no matter what. How does this relate? When people ask what they believe they are gaining from their 'preaching', they say they were commanded to do it. I watched several documentaries about them and they finally gave an answer that made sense: they said they don't believe their preaching really has any affect, only that they've been told in the Bible to preach. So, they have fun with it, because, in their minds, it really doesn't matter if they offend anyone, or if anyone even listens, because they believe God has already chosen who is going to 'make it'.
We, on the other hand, are not Calvinists. How we approach something does, in fact, matter (according to our belief system) because it does, in fact, matter if people listen to us. We don't believe God has already chosen, so we want people to actually listen and change.
So, in answer to TFP's original, "Why? Why is looking to understand necessary as a prerequisite for speaking truth?" we, unlike the WBC, are not Calvinists. Looking to understand first will make them listening much more likely. If we were Calvinists, then it wouldn't matter. We too could just badger people, believing we were fulfilling what God told us to do.
In the case of Prophets in scripture who, it seems, didn't first look to understand: They are either speaking to a great many people (which means they really just generally need to know what people generally need), are speaking to people who they know (through the Spirit, or other means) aren't going to listen even if they are understood, or, hey, sometimes Prophets make mistakes, some of the instances might be one of these times. -
Well...don't leave it there. What about you? Thomas S. Monson orders you to kill two people with a sword. No dice? Or begin to slice?
Probably not. I don't have enough personal experience with President Monson to follow a killing order from him (believing it was from God, of course). Much the same as "Kill Laban" was not the first revelation given to Nephi, I believe I would receive more from President Monson before he would receive the revelation: Kill the king and this rich dude.
-
Why do I feel highly baited by this question?
Short answer... yes. Yes I would.
I thought that would be your answer. I find that interesting.
-
Mine as well. I'm not killing two people on anyone's say so without something more compelling than just their claims. :)
Let's say the religious man is Thomas S. Monson. Would you do it then?
-
From my experience, I'm inclined to believe he follows the King or the Religious Man. People, in general, are terrified of offending two things: God and The Law. I would need to know more about the man to know which he is more terrified of.
-
What does that have to do with anything?
Did you look it up?
-
Friends and acquaintances will walk with their same-sex attracted loved ones quite closely. When the subject is broached--especially if religious faith is allowed to enter the conversation--then the true strength of the relationship will be tested. Many factors go into how the itneraction plays out. We do our best to love, to speak truth, to be understanding. We trust that the Holy Ghost will bathe those situations. Free will, or agency, ultimately tips the balance.
Prophets, or even bishops/pastors/priests/teachers, on the other hand, are expected to communicate God's message. Empathy is always good, but when the Lord saieth, we are called to repeat, "Thus saieth the Lord..."
Yes, yes, if the Spirit so moveth. But we should be cautious not to lie about "The Spirit" like the girl on Glee who lies about her "aspergers" in order to be a jerk without repercussions (from outside, or from within).
-
Why? Why is looking to understand necessary as a prerequisite for speaking truth? Seems like there's a whole lot of scriptural prophetic examples where their preaching repentance came without any looking to understand. Were the prophets all wrong?
Because we aren't Calvinists. Look into why the Westboro Baptist Church does what it does.
-
I'm not sure anyone--certainly no one on this string--is promoting condemnation. Further, even "being gay" is not a sin. It is a state of constant temptation. The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity, whether by action or by willful lust. The sad, sorry truth is that if you "lecture in love" any adult about such sinfulness, and they will not catch the nuance between that and condemnation.
It think the step that is too often missed is the "looking to understand" before the "lecturing in love." I would argue that without the first step, the offended kind of has a right to be.
-
So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong? You're unwilling to say?
Logic tells us that we do not accept something as truth unless there is evidence suggesting that it is fact. Such a statement as Kimball's should not be made without providing evidence to support it. (At least if you want to be taken seriously). Jump through all the hoops you want, twist it all you want, but his statement regarding mmasturbation and homosexuality is wrong.
I'm afraid that science and religious belief are similar, but not the same. Lots of people have experiences with following what President Kimball said and were blessed for it, so they choose to believe he was a Prophet whom God spoke through. There will never be empirical evidence that Pres. Kimball was a Prophet, only experience mixed with perspective.
So, asking for empirical backup is asking for the impossible. You've had experiences that show that Pres. Kimball was wrong about this thing (I actually agree with you), so you don't believe this was inspired. Those arguing with you have had different experiences, so they believe.
-
not these two scriptures
John 8:7 ..."He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
What im saying is that as a society we need to stand up for what is right, i will gladly march (an act of condemning) down capital street in support of passing an anti-gay marriage laws, but I will not condemn a gay child in my own home.
thoughts?
I agree with you. Your child will likely know you don't entirely approve of homosexuality (assuming she comes home with a gf, and you're raising her in the church), which means she already knows. Why beat a dead horse, as it were?
There are places in the scriptures that I'm sure Vort will point out to you where it is stated in the scriptures that we need to call people to repentance. I would assume a daughter (or any other gay person who has grown up in the church) already has the Holy Ghost calling them to repentance. I would say our job is to be loving enough to keep them close to the church, so if they decide to listen, they know they have people there to help them, who helped them through everything else.
-
God doesn't want us to lie. Are liars offended?
God does not want us to commit adultery. Are adulterers offended?
God does not want us to steal. Are thieves offended?
God does not want us to worship other gods. Are idolaters offended?
God does not want us to sin. Are all of us offended (Rom 3:23--all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God)/
Yes, we should not speak with condescension. And, of course, we influence mostly by example, and then speak life into people mainly through invitation. I'm not going up to strangers, banging Leviticus over their heads, telling them to turn straight or burn.
On the other hand, why do some sins cause us to be so very cautious, while others receive overt and blunt condemnation? The LBGT is positioning itself as extremely wounded and offended at Christianity. Our natural inclination is to mitigate that, and prove them wrong. We're not mean, we're not intentionally ugly, etc.
So be a friend first. Show love first. However, when push comes to shove, and you know you can no longer avoid the issue, will we speak the truth, even if it costs us that friendship? Good friends of mine used to be Wiccan (the guy was, the gal was just away from God). When they converted to a rigorous Christian practice some of their Wiccan friends continued the relationship. Others said that since they had become bigots (opposed to gay marriage) they could no longer associate with them.
What's instructive is that this couple were not going around preaching about how bad gay marriage was. They got cornered, and more or less asked, "Now that you are Christians are you opposed to gay marriage?"
Love (charity)? Kindness? Gentleness? Patience? -- OF COURSE!!! These are fruits of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, when the crucial moment comes, will we or will we not declare, "Thus saieth the Lord...?"
I have a gay buddy and he and I have had this conversation. I was honest. I told him I think homosexuality is against the laws of God, but that it doesn't change our relationship. I still love him. I'm still his friend. I listened, then spoke, and when I spoke, I didn't ever try to beat him over the head with life's manual, nor did I tell him God didn't intend for him to be this way because his body had strayed from factory settings (which, we have no idea if that's true or not). I was honest, straightforward and loving. Are there bigots in all communities? Absolutely; like the Wiccans who will stop being your friends if you convert to Christianity, and you aren't ever going to get those to listen to you. But, you will get some to listen to you through kindness, whereas, a very small percentage (if any at all) are going to listen to condescension.
The response you posted would come off as condescending to my buddy and others I've spoken to, which is why I got involved in this thread in the first place. Honest and kind should be the watchwords when we have these conversations. From the sounds of it, I think you'd agree.
-
Sorry for late posts and all, but, does it make it a sin to play that Zelda game if some things in it give me "bad" feelings.?
If you got bad feelings, you might want to stop playing it. As for 'is it a sin', I'd say, pray to God, telling him that you played it, how it made you feel, and what you plan to do in the future, and then don't worry about if it's a sin or not. Trying to figure that out could lead to fixating on it, which isn't a terribly healthy way to look at God, sin, repentance, etc.
-
When a sinner insists that God made him/her to sin that one is speaking from something other than recognition and repentence. Is the person accusing God? Perhaps blaming the church? Certainly there is the implication that their sin is NOT sin. So yes, the answer is that God made them better than that. That the original creation was not corrupt, and that they way we are to live is found in the scriptures. To answer a defensiveness of sin, or an accusation against God/church with mild humor (no sarcasm--I mean what I said) is to defuse, not inflame.
From those I've spoken to, this would enflame. I've found that the only time I really listen to anyone about what they think I should be doing is when I feel like they really understand my personal situation. If they don't, I see them as sticking their nose where it does not belong. Coming at them with "Read your Bible! God doesn't mean for anyone to be gay!" smacks of pride and a lack of understanding of what it's like to be in their shoes. So, the best way to get them to actually repent, as opposed to stroking our own religious ego, is to be an actual compassionate friend to first tries to understand, then tries to counsel.
-
How do you reconcile that with doctrines of other churches? Do you mean that you define "doctrine" uniquely for the LDS church? But for every other church it means what it means - per the dictionary? Just for our church it has some mystical, elusive neo-meaning?
How very confusing.
Maybe for some.
-
Well, I've given my definition. I'll be interested to see what omegaseamaster's is, and how it manages to deny that the Church ever taught what it very obviously did teach. (And in effect still teaches; I have never seen any Church teaching that suggests the Church leaders just made a mistake for 120+ years, a mistake that required revelation to correct.)
I see 'doctrine' as more than teachings. I see them as truths. So, there is very little 'doctrine' in my book, but a great deal of policy, cultural norms, and inference. I am also interested to see what his definition is.
-
I wish I could remember the Country-Western singer who once quipped, "I just don't think God made men to be monogamous." Sure, he was joking. Yet, perhaps only half.
Which is harder, trying to minister to the one who thinks chastity is a joke, or the one who insists that God made us to be unchaste, and seriously believes that?
Both will listen better to a sincere attempt to understand and love them than a sarcastic remark about factory settings and how life came with a manual.
-
-
-
Or, maybe we could answer them with loving kindness, trying to understand why they feel the way they feel. Both seem like good options, I think.
-
You've brought up some interesting topics. I've had a good time posting and lurking in the threads. If you find anything else that would start up a good conversation, I'll ask you post it. Best o' luck to you. Obviously, we disagree with the conclusion you've come to about us (or, at least some of us do), but, of course, that's from our point of view and not yours.
What's brought you to cry
in General Discussion
Posted
Honestly, I cry every time I read "I'll Love you Forever" (throughout. Seriously, pretty much the whole way through), "The Gift of the Magi" (when she hopes he'll think she's still pretty, and "Horton Hears a Who" (when they say they'll protect them with Horton).