rickg

Aparently there are those who DO feel the chuch has "gone too far" with this. This was on KSL web site yesterday: Some upset by LDS Church call for political participation June 28th, 2008 @ 1:14pm By JENNIFER DOBNER Associated Press Writer SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Lester Leavitt wrote a letter asking family members to make a decision. The Pompano Beach, Fla. man wanted his siblings and children to choose family over a call from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leaders to support a November ballot initiative to define traditional marriage in California's constitution. A lifetime member of the Church who came out as a gay man in 2004, Leavitt wants his California relatives to walk out when a letter from the Church's leaders is read. "I thought by asking my family to do this, I was simply asking them to send a strong message to Salt Lake City that they disagree with the idea that any church has the right to entrench clearly religious dogma into the constitution of a state or country," he wrote in a letter posted on an Internet discussion group called q-saints. "I was just asking them to defend my civil rights." A letter from Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was to be read from the pulpit in church congregations Sunday. After working as an activist on behalf of gay members of the Church and surviving an excommunication attempt by his local bishop, Leavitt said Monson's letter was a disappointing last straw. He sent a certified letter to the Church's Salt Lake City headquarters Wednesday asking to have his name removed from the roles. "I wanted to remain a cultural Mormon," Leavitt, 44, said Thursday. "I thought there was a way, an opening up, but then all of a sudden, the Church decides this ... and I'm not going to wait around." Leavitt is far from alone. Since the letter first began circulating on the Web last weekend, hundreds of Church member blog postings have expressed disbelief, disappointment and outrage at the Church's decision to wade into politics. "I don't really know anybody who takes issue with a Church's right to its moral position and teachings," said Nick Literski, of Seattle, a former Church member who is gay. "It's when they take a political action to impose those beliefs on society that people object. Even people who don't support marriage equality are still upset about this." Officially, the Church teaches that homosexual sex is a sin, although celibate gays can remain active in church callings and activities. Since the 1990s the Church has been politically active in defeating same-sex marriage initiatives nationwide, including asking its members to vigorously help pass California's Proposition 22 in 2000, which prohibited California from legally recognizing gay marriages performed outside the state. But over the last five years the church had seemed to undergo a subtle shift in position. Leaders have been more silent and limited the Church's activism to filing legal briefs and a signature on a 2006 letter to Congress supporting a federal marriage amendment. In addition the rhetoric around what the Church calls same-gender attraction had softened and Latter-day Saints have been encouraged to encircle gay members with love and compassion. Even a short statement of disappointment after last month's California's Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage was mild. "Maybe I was just optimistic. I thought they might sit on the sidelines and not have any bad press," said Matt Thurston, a 39-year-old Church member from Corona, Calif., who is not gay. "Between (2000) and now, some of the things I've seen, some of the statements that have come out, they seemed much more sympathetic ... They don't treat it in the same way they used to." Although President Monson's letter states the faith's "unequivocal" moral position that marriage between a man and a woman is an institution ordained by God seems to indicate no change of heart by leaders, many wonder if the general membership will rally to political participation with the same fervor as in 2000. Wards were assessed fundraising goals and members walked door-to-door to get out the vote eight years ago. "There is that culture of obedience that once the proclamation has been raised, that's it," said Jeffrey Nielsen, a professor of philosophy who was ousted from the Church-owned Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah in 2006 after criticizing the Church's position on gay marriage in a local newspaper column. At the same time, the Church preaches that God blesses each person with the agency to make his or her own decisions and some may not surrender that freedom so easily, said Nielsen, who has submitted an open letter to his fellow Church members and to several California newspapers. "A growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60's when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70's when they opposed full legal equality for women," he writes. "No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit." That the Church has changed in the past -- black men, for example were finally granted full ecclesiastical authority in 1978 -- gives Nielsen and others hope for its future. A generation of leaders who grew up alongside openly gay friends or relatives and a belief in continuing revelation offer opportunities for a new direction. "Even if you take this from the LDS point of view where changes can only be made by revelation, by God, you still have to have leaders who are willing to ask the question," said Literski, 41, who was married and has five daughters. "There will come a day, I believe, when there will be somebody in authority who is willing. It won't be overnight, but I think we will see an accommodation."

Oh, to answer the query, no, I don't beleive in any of that stuff mentioned, at least not in the way the world sees them. I suppose anything's possible, at the right time, in the right circumstances, as with Christ. But otherwise, nadda.

Reminds me of this eccentric family I taught on my mission. We were making good progress with them thru the lessons. One nite they had us over for dinner. The Mom/Mrs started talking about some crazy levitation she swore up and down they knew how to do. "So, ok. Show us!" They had my companion sit in a chair in the center of the living room. Then the whole family(mom, dad, daughter & son) gathered around him, put thier collective hands over his head, but not touching, and started with some wierd chant, and then walking around him in a circle. They stopped, put just and index finger each under the chair, and claimed at this point my companion would become almost weightless(and the chair) and they will lift them into the air with just one finger each. It didn't work(yeah, duh!) They were shocked! Then scared! Long story shorter, they became convinced that what they were doing was of Satan, and because we held the Priesthood of God, we prevented this crazy thing from working. We baptised the whole family soon after. Wonder if they stayed active?

Let's just say that Porter Rockwell is one of my heros.

Oh, c'mon. Let's be real here. I'll respect anyones wishes to do as they feel they need to in their spiritual quest. I have to do that with my brother. But unless you've actually gone thru watching a close family member leave the church, you have no idea of the emotional drain it is on you. It took me a couple years to stop stressing over it, wondering what I, or anyone else could have done to help him see what he was doing. It's a very, very difficult thing to go thru. So yes, I'd love to walk up to my brother, slap him up the side of the head, and tell him to REALLY think about his choice. And do it with all the love I have for him. Which is ALOT! But I won't. I sit back, I keep quiet about it, and I hope him(and this person here) all the best. And hope and pray they someday realize the mistake. Now don't EVEN tell me that's not what everyone here is REALLY thinking deep inside, but won't say it, because we're supposed to be all warm and fuzzy. It's what we Mormons do, right? Now c'mon. Group hug.

My brother did the same thing a few years ago. Wish I could do the same thing to him, that I'd like to do to anyone doing this.....whack them up the side of the head. That's my HONEST response. Sorry. Have a good life.

Yes, been there, am doing that. I asked a past Bishop what all I need to talk about, how far back to go, ect. He actually left it mostly up to me. But he was most concerned with my current issues, not what happened 10 years ago. If I had a list of sins going back that far, and had truely left them behind, he was satisfied with that. We tend to be tougher on ourselves than a Bishop(or the Lord), so he said I'd probably already more than paid for those sins. I suppose adultry and murder would need to be dealt with, but anything less than that could be considered a done deal. But, as other have said, talk it over with the Bishop, and go from there. One thing I have done, is have a prayer just before going in to my Bishops office, and ask that the Spirit would guide the discussion, and that anything that needed to be dealt with would come up. Sounds simple, but it works! I had something I'd almost forgotten about come to my mind in one interview, and it did nned to be talked about. So try that.

I tried it for awhile. Was warned "it gets rough" there. What I wasn't warned about, was some of the roughest players there are members of the church(!!!) Too many self righteous know-it-alls there, IMHO. It became pointless when I had a harder time defending my opinions/ideas/thoughts to other church members than I've ever had with non-members. But, have fun:D

Don't know if you'll see this before you go in, but hang in there. They're kinda nervewracking, but when it's over, you'll be greatful you went thru with it. There's nothing but the utmost love and concern for the one in the hot seat. Been there, done that.

I think Solace was looking for a simpler answer then all THAT! I just moved to Utah going on 3 years ago, and so far have not encountered any of what you're talking about. Luckily. I've been visiting this state since I was a kid(lotsa relatives here), and always heard those kind of stories. And I knew people that had moved here, then moved right back(to Washington state) because of what they encountered. I dunno. Maybe it's a region by region thing here. Maybe I lucked out and moved to a "friendly" area. Our ward was very warm from the start, with no apparent issues at all. It's a age-mixed ward, meaning there's a alot of young couples, as well as old timers that grew up here. So I imagine if I was going to encounter any issues, I would have by now. I've talked to a few friends at work and asked them about this. One fella is from California, and not a member. I asked him point blank if he's had any prob's with self-righteous Mormons since moving here, and he said no, not at all. And he IS an overly sensitive guy. We have to be careful how we tease and joke around with him. So, maybe it's alot in how sensative you want to be about it, or maybe you were unlucky enough to move into the middle of a bunch of LDS hypocrites. I know they're out there. I've encountered plenty of them outside Utah.

Some good(some not so good) dialogues on gospel doctrine, and how it is answered to others, goes on here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/ May want to search their discussions, or register and pose this question there youself. This forum seems short on answering these kind of questions by anything other than the usual "pat answers" you hear in sunday school, no offense intended. I've pretty much given up on trying myself.

-sigh- No, I'm NOT out to "PROVE" a freakin thing. Make a point, yes. Prove, no. I'm completely understanding that this is obviously a grey area, kinda like caffiene. Not a temple recommend question per se, but there's still an underlying gospel concept that I think the Lord expects us to explore and discover on our own, then learn to live it. Or not. Look, we're all supposedly on the same side here. So let's just drop it. Not worth getting our collective panties in a bunch anymore on this. Sheesh.

You totally missed my point. never mind.

Ward Pointer. He's the fella that sits up front during a Sacrement Meeting, and as a speaker is talking about various gospel matters, he'd stand up and point to those in the congregation to which that particular subject relates. Could come in handy on judgement day.

Oh, the EQP. My stories aren't always real clear.

an ex-bishop I knew years ago said that those that aspire to become a bishop, deserve it. I knew an Elders quorum pres on my mission that always seemed less than humble to even me. I heard later after I transfered to another area that the ward's bishop was released. Apparently this EP, and his wife, felt assured that he would be called as the new bishop. He wasn't. A month or so later, he was found dead on a street corner, murdered. Now, I'm not one to make hasty conclusions about things that happen to people. But this one was TOO wierd. Anywho, I've always firmly believed that we're not to aspire to "lofty" callings in the church. Not for us to try and predict what the Lord knows we need. And I think I'd never be very trusting of such a person. Something conflicting about aspiring to such a calling, and this thing called humility. A wise man once said that public service (he was actually talking about politics) was a like cream. All the nasty bits float to the top. Another wise man suggested that anyone who aspired to the office of the President should be automatically disqualified. While the principles seem to be true, let's tread lightly with the wild speculations about our fellow priesthood holders, hmmm? Even the Savior advised his apostles that he who would be greatest amongst them should serve the least amongst them. There are many wise and humble servants of the Lord- some aspired to do greater good and shoulder more of the burden, most waited patiently for the Lord to reveal his will and then did as he bid them. It is not our place to judge them- only to support and sustain them. Honos

Let's just assume we could poll the GA's on this. What do you honestly feel they would give as an answer, as to how they pay their's, gross pay, or net? I could take a good guess, and feel I have a 99% sureity I'd be right. No, I'm not going around advising others. It just came up in a conversation with my aunt & uncle, and they told me what I mentioned earlier. I tried to kindly dispute it, but it quickly became evident they had their minds made up, so I let it go. I won't bring it up again with them, or anyone else, unless they do first. Yes, I fell very pasionate about it. It's what I've been taught for years, and feel is the right way to interpret it, and most everyone I've ever discussed it with have agreed. I'm just amazed that some feel otherwise, but I won't go to very much length to argue the point. In fact this here discussion is as far as I've ever taken it. As the saying goes, politics and religion.......... So, I'm done here. Thanks for all the input. B)

I think I have the best calling I could have right now, Ward Family History consultant(or whatever it's actually called). Only prob is, with my work schedule, I can't be fully functional in it. But it's a fun calling. The other thing I'd LOVE to do, were I to have the talent for it, would be Choir leader. I LOVE singing in the choir, but can't really read music very well. (My wife just got released from the calling because she just got so frustrated with it)

Oh, and callings I fear...... Most any leadership calling. I hate the phone, and am not always real patient with people. Of course, that probably means I'm slated for a leadership calling Teaching the youth, mostly teens. I was called to teach the 15-16 year olds as soon as I got home form my mission. It was a total disaster. I almost went inactive over it.

Do you go to the same church as I do? There are guidlines in the church about tithing. It's to be 10%("tithe" means a tenth) of your gross income. Gifts, ect are the only thing that's in a grey zone here. I just don't know where it's referenced. Edit: Ok. Did a search at the church's web site: The Law of Tithing Elder Daniel L. Johnson Of the Seventy "So what is a tithing? The Lord has given us His definition: “And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever.”2 Please note that the tithe is not just any freewill offering, nor is it a 20th or some other fraction of our annual interest or income. President Howard W. Hunter stated it this way: “The law is simply stated as ‘one-tenth of all their interest.’ Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law ‘forever’ as it has been in the past.” Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice: Opening the Windows of Heaven By President James E. Faust Second Counselor in the First Presidency "The law of tithing is simple: we pay one-tenth of our individual increase. Our increase is our income." New Era » 1975 » December Q&A: Questions and Answers "Because of the many questions about tithing that are received by the General Authorities of the Church, the First Presidency addressed a letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches, dated March 19, 1970. They referred these Church officers to the Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4 [D&C 119:3–4], which reads: “And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. “… those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” After quoting this scripture the First Presidency said: “No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” They did, however, point out that “interest” is understood to mean “income.” Income. Not "after taxes increase". Income, as in my wages. What I'm paid to do my job.

That's not a safe statement to make in tne church! I've seen people called right into some scarey callings before their baptismal water had a chance to dry

Hey, alot of really good answers here. B) While we're on the subject, an Aunt & Uncle of mine pay tithing on what's left of their paycheck AFTER they pay bills, taxes, ect. They even claim that their Bishop instructed them that this was acceptable. Now, I know this isn't what it means to pay on our "increase", but I can't actually find it in writing to dispute it. Anybody have a reference? I recall waay back in an Institute of Religion class this issue was brought up, and the instructor told us that this was how the RLDS church interpreted the scripture, but I can't recall now what he used to refute it.

Ho boy. Another fun subject "Gifts" are kinda in the grey-zone. I'm sure you'll get some folks here on both sides of the fence. I think, IMHO, that as far as being "temple worthy", you'd be safe with paying a tithe on your paycheck. But let's see what others say here. This outta be interesting.

I think we're saying the same thing, just mine is the Readers Digest version I like it simple. Like me

Sorry. I either am missing your point, or have to disagree. Sound too much like Evangelicals concept of being "saved". There's waaay more to it than that. Yeah, it starts the process, but it's only the very beginning. There's this whole pesky thing of being faithful to the commandments, and the "worst" part, enduring to the end.