Guest Taoist_Saint Posted March 6, 2004 Report Posted March 6, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Peace@Mar 5 2004, 09:31 PM uh huh sure....you feel pleanty of guilt Tao.... No I don't...not about coffee, the sabbath, or tithing anyway.I felt guilty before I joined the Church because I thought my wife would be happier in a Temple Marriage. But that guilt has passed. We might still get a Temple Marriage someday, and if we do I will obey those laws I mentioned...just so I can honestly answer the Temple Recommend questions.Aside from that, I have no guilt over religious issues. Quote And btw...you really want to do all the right things...but you have a fear of commitment.No...I just like coffee alot...it comforts my soul. I also like to shop on Sundays because it is convenient. And I don't tithe right now because I have a fear of losing lots of money which I want to spend on my family. Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted March 6, 2004 Report Posted March 6, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Peace+Mar 5 2004, 09:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 5 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Taoist_Saint@Mar 5 2004, 05:41 PMI just don't have alot of faith that we shouldn't drink coffee, shop on Sundays, or give money to the Church. Sacrifice.... I think I sacrifice alot already. Just being alive is a sacrifice. If I was a a greedy man, I could go out and steal everything I needed. Or I could spend more money on luxuries. Buy a new car. Use credit cards. But I don't. I make sacrifices every day by living humbly, which is alot more than most people do these days.That is the way I see it... Quote
Cal Posted March 7, 2004 Report Posted March 7, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Peace@Feb 28 2004, 09:01 AM I know with that intro....the anti's will flock in droves...but I really am speaking only to those who believe in God or at least say they do.I would just like to ask ...why would those who believe in God, the Bible, and it's teachings ever believe being tolerant and accepting of the 'gay' life style is a good thing?What you are doing is supporting 'sinners' in their sin. How is that helping them? How is supporting 'sin' worshipping Christ who suffered for all those sins?How do you validate your 'christianity' when supporting, accepting, tolerating....the sinner ...and infact facilitating or at least giving strength to their committing sin...by trying to remove 'social' markers/laws which try to descourage 'sin'?I just don't get it.If you truly wanted what was 'best' for those gays...you would do everything in your power to help them not be gay...Unless you really don't believe there is punishment for sin...and if that is so...then you really don't believe the scriptures or in God.Those who truly 'hate' gays will support their sinful life style and say they are good people...etc...But those who truly love them as brothers and sisters will not suppport the lie. Quote Peace--back to the original posting--it's not that people don't believe the scriptures, it's that the scriptures have to be interpretied in relation to all other scripture and in light of logic and reason. The scriptures were not written in a vaccum. They were, also, not all written under direct inspiration from God--unless you think that God actually supported things like slavery and killing children for having revelations etc (yes, it's all right there in the scriptures).So, just because someone doesn't intepret the scriptures in the way you do, doesn't mean they don't regard them as inspirational or important. Whether God regards gays as SINNERS in the way YOU do is only for GOD to say. I would say that, in light of the kind of God I believe in, God knows that HE created their propensities and sexual predilections. He knows that for the most, they part are completely incapable of finding the opposite sex attractive--and cannot do so anymore that YOU can find the same sex attractive (am I making too many assumptions?)That people in the Old Testament times, who were writting the scriptures, regarded gay behavior as some kind of abomination to God.....just remember, these were the same people that thought that God approved of slavery. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Quote I know with that intro....the anti's will flock in droves...but I really am speaking only to those who believe in God or at least say they do.I would just like to ask ...why would those who believe in God, the Bible, and it's teachings ever believe being tolerant and accepting of the 'gay' life style is a good thing?What you are doing is supporting 'sinners' in their sin. How is that helping them? How is supporting 'sin' worshipping Christ who suffered for all those sins?How do you validate your 'christianity' when supporting, accepting, tolerating....the sinner ...and infact facilitating or at least giving strength to their committing sin...by trying to remove 'social' markers/laws which try to descourage 'sin'?I just don't get it.If you truly wanted what was 'best' for those gays...you would do everything in your power to help them not be gay...Unless you really don't believe there is punishment for sin...and if that is so...then you really don't believe the scriptures or in God.Those who truly 'hate' gays will support their sinful life style and say they are good people...etc...But those who truly love them as brothers and sisters will not suppport the lie. Quote Peace--back to the original posting--it's not that people don't believe the scriptures, it's that the scriptures have to be interpretied in relation to all other scripture and in light of logic and reason. The scriptures were not written in a vaccum. They were, also, not all written under direct inspiration from God--unless you think that God actually supported things like slavery and killing children for having revelations etc (yes, it's all right there in the scriptures).So, just because someone doesn't intepret the scriptures in the way you do, doesn't mean they don't regard them as inspirational or important. Whether God regards gays as SINNERS in the way YOU do is only for GOD to say. I would say that, in light of the kind of God I believe in, God knows that HE created their propensities and sexual predilections. That people in the Old Testament times, who were writting the scriptures, regarded gay behavior as some kind of abomination to God.....just remember, these were the same people that thought that God approved of slavery. I do believe there is a good reason we have ancient scriptures. I also believe that what is defined as sin...is based upon eternal principle...not time and place. Quote He knows that for the most, they part are completely incapable of finding the opposite sex attractive--and cannot do so anymore that YOU can find the same sex attractive (am I making too many assumptions?)I don't agree...and as to making too many assumptions...well....that would take some long winded chat to get the whole picture...But just a little clue...I believe we all enjoy our own sexuality and how it effects others....in most cases how it effects the opposite sex...However, most all the homosexuals, and lesbian people I have met and known well...were socially not accepted by the opposite sex and were very lonely people until they connected with the same sex who had the same social rejection from the opposite sex. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 IOWs...my point is....I believe they are homo/lesbian due to desperateness....not first choice. I believe it started with them in the early years...just pre-teen. Quote
Cal Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Peace@Mar 7 2004, 05:34 PM IOWs...my point is....I believe they are homo/lesbian due to desperateness....not first choice. I believe it started with them in the early years...just pre-teen. Peace--Sorry, but I would really encourage you to go further than just the few gays you have known and consult carefully controled studies that show CLEARLY that "gayness" is not just socially induced. In fact, the studies show that most is NOT. You may consult the Minnesota Twin studies, Australian Twin studies as well as the anatomical studies that prove without much doubt that there is indeed an ORGANIC basis for gender preference.You have said you believe in reason. If you do, then do some "homework" and see what you find out.My experience with gays has been the opposite of yours. They have told me that they new they were different since they can remember. Of course there will be some people who experiment with homosexuality who are not really gay. But, the gays who remain gay there whole lives do so against tremendous social presure to the contrary.Who in their right mind would CHOSE that life style if it were not inborn? Quote
Jason Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Jenda, And you thought i knew nothing about mormonism.....i've even attended the Ogden utah RLDS church! The stake president was a very nice lady.... Jason Quote
Jenda Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 7 2004, 07:18 PM Jenda, And you thought i knew nothing about mormonism.....i've even attended the Ogden utah RLDS church! The stake president was a very nice lady.... Jason I guess you really don't know much about mormonism. At least RLDS mormonism. There is no RLDS stake in Utah. There were many in Independence, MO, and surrounding areas, and a couple in California, but none in Utah. Now, there are none at all. But, back to your point, she probably was a nice lady, even if she wasn't an authoritatively ordained priesthood member. (One of the things restorationists don't accept is women in the priesthood. We don't accept it because it has never been ordained in any of the restorations of the church, from Adam on down.) Quote
Guest lt Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 I have never known a stake pres to be a female either jenda....lo lol Maybe its a new church? Cal, I hear what you are saying...But if I belived in ever studied then I wouldnt belive in god either.....Just a thought Quote
Jenda Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by LaurelTree@Mar 7 2004, 07:38 PM I have never known a stake pres to be a female either jenda....lo lol Maybe its a new church? No, the RLDS church started ordaining women into the priesthood in 1984. Now we have female apostles, female bishops (which have a different job description than your bishops), female evangelists.But, yes, it is a different church. Different from the one that was restored in 1830 and reorganized in 1860. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Cal+Mar 7 2004, 06:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 7 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 7 2004, 05:34 PM IOWs...my point is....I believe they are homo/lesbian due to desperateness....not first choice. I believe it started with them in the early years...just pre-teen. Peace--Sorry, but I would really encourage you to go further than just the few gays you have known and consult carefully controled studies that show CLEARLY that "gayness" is not just socially induced. In fact, the studies show that most is NOT. You may consult the Minnesota Twin studies, Australian Twin studies as well as the anatomical studies that prove without much doubt that there is indeed an ORGANIC basis for gender preference.You have said you believe in reason. If you do, then do some "homework" and see what you find out.My experience with gays has been the opposite of yours. They have told me that they new they were different since they can remember. Of course there will be some people who experiment with homosexuality who are not really gay. But, the gays who remain gay there whole lives do so against tremendous social presure to the contrary.Who in their right mind would CHOSE that life style if it were not inborn? I agree I should do more studying....but I really don't want to.But I disagree...lonelyness cause people to do all sorts of crazy things. Desperation for acceptence does too...who in their right mind (emotionally speaking) would go on drugs or drunk binges? Quote
Jason Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 jenda, I didn't realize that you were such a touchy 'restorationist'! I take it that you don't accept W. Grand McMurray's leadership as prophet, seer, and revelator? Do you accept the leadership of Mark Evans then? JasonPS. A listing of the RLDS Congregation I attended in Ogden. It was there long before your schismatic group appeared on the scene....http://www.cofchrist.org/directory/states/utah.asp Quote
Jenda Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 7 2004, 10:36 PM jenda, I didn't realize that you were such a touchy 'restorationist'! I take it that you don't accept W. Grand McMurray's leadership as prophet, seer, and revelator? Do you accept the leadership of Mark Evans then? JasonPS. A listing of the RLDS Congregation I attended in Ogden. It was there long before your schismatic group appeared on the scene....http://www.cofchrist.org/directory/states/utah.asp I view Grant as president of an institution, trying to lead the people the best he can under the circumstances. I believe that he is a man of God, but I do not believe that he is a prophet. The last authoritatively ordained prophet was Wallace B. Smith, great-grandson of JS,Jr.I don't know who Mark Evans is, sorry.I realize that there is a mission center out there, I was making reference to stakes. In our church, the stakes (which originally started out as large groupings of saints in the centerplace and were supposed to spread out like spokes of a wheel) and regions were replaced with mission centers. There were many stakes in the Independence, MO area and a couple in California, but the rest of the world was divided into regions. Utah was a region, as was the NE where I live. Alas, there are no stakes anymore.I take it you meant the congregation you attended, not the stake. The stake was a conglomeration of a large number (often more than 20) congregations. Quote
Jason Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 According to the "stake" president, she was over four congregations. 3 in utah and 1 in Idaho. Hmm..... Oh and Mark Evans is the new president of the high priesthood for the "Restoration Church of Jesus Christ". It's one of those splinter churches from the old RLDS. Quote
Jenda Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Quote Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 8 2004, 10:18 AM Oh and Mark Evans is the new president of the high priesthood for the "Restoration Church of Jesus Christ".It's one of those splinter churches from the old RLDS. I wonder if that is a different organization from the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Marcus Juby was the one who was in charge of that group, but I heard the group was having a tough go of it and wondered if it had collapsed, or anything.I don't believe that God has ordained any groups to organize new organizations. There have been too many prophesies that the RLDS church will be the one that Christ will work through to bring forth Zion. The independent restoration branches are formed in the same manner that branches were formed after JS,Jr. was killed but before JS,III came into office. These branches were later absorbed into the RLDS church with full membership, etc. That is what we expect to happen again, in the future when a true prophet is designated and ordained. Quote
Snow Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Jenda, I get all confusedned when you explain all this. What church do you belong to and do they have a website? Quote
porterrockwell Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Jenda is a part of a Church that has no authority to the priesthood. Unfortunately they were bitter when Brigham Young was given the reigns by GOD, and they seperated themselves from the truth. It is clearly evident that those who have followed the RLDS path have now many "splintered" communities to choose from...hmmmm...wonder why. Plus, if you will notice, they are starting to look and sound like mainstreamers. Again, wonder why? Quote
Jenda Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Snow@Mar 8 2004, 01:03 PM Jenda,I get all confusedned when you explain all this. What church do you belong to and do they have a website? I technically belong to, and attend, the Community of Christ. My beliefs parallel the restorationists. I cannot attend a restoration branch because there are none near me.The website to the Community of Christ is http://www.cofchrist.orgA couple of websites that represents the restoration branches is http://www.centerplace.orghttp://www.eldersconference.org/ Quote
Jason Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Jenda, Isn't centerplace John Hayjeck's site? Is he a restorationist? This is the restorationist site I know of: http://www.restorationchurch.net/Is this anything related to your beliefs? Jason Quote
Jason Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Porter, You said: "Jenda is a part of a Church that has no authority to the priesthood. Unfortunately they were bitter when Brigham Young was given the reigns by GOD, and they seperated themselves from the truth." It's interesting that you feel that Brigham Young had more authority than, say, anyone else after Smith's death. Since BY was not ordained by Joseph Smith to take over, how do you justify the authority? You said: "It is clearly evident that those who have followed the RLDS path have now many "splintered" communities to choose from...hmmmm...wonder why. Plus, if you will notice, they are starting to look and sound like mainstreamers. Again, wonder why?" Do you honestly expect this board to believe that there haven't been dozens of splinter churches break away from the Brighamites? Jason Quote
Jenda Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 John Hajicek is not a restorationist, I don't believe. I have read parts of his site, and for some reason I believe he is associated with the Church of Christ - Temple Lot. The website you referenced is the website for the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They were restorationists who decided to unite. They organized under the high priests, or the seventies, who left the church. There is another church that organized called the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. One group organized under the seventies, the other under the high priests. Don't remember which is which. I would say that both are rather similar to the restoration branches, but we don't believe that there has been a divine order to re-reorganize, so therefore, we believe that both of those groups have forfeited their claim to be the true church. Quote
Jenda Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Quote Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 8 2004, 04:37 PM Jenda is a part of a Church that has no authority to the priesthood. Unfortunately they were bitter when Brigham Young was given the reigns by GOD, and they seperated themselves from the truth. It is clearly evident that those who have followed the RLDS path have now many "splintered" communities to choose from...hmmmm...wonder why. Plus, if you will notice, they are starting to look and sound like mainstreamers. Again, wonder why? Wow! Porter, your grasp on church history is amazingly ................................. negligible.Maybe you should study up on it before offering such an enlightened opinion in the future. Quote
Snow Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 8 2004, 06:58 PM I technically belong to, and attend, the Community of Christ. That's what I thought. But with all the other stuff it gets confusing. You am a member of the CoC but don't fully accept them but attend because they are convenient. That's fair enough. Quote
Snow Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Quote Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 8 2004, 07:36 PM It's interesting that you feel that Brigham Young had more authority than, say, anyone else after Smith's death. Since BY was not ordained by Joseph Smith to take over, how do you justify the authority? Jason,You should know full well how we justify it. We decided, ultimately, that the keys resided with the 12. Further, we, as a matter of faith, believe that the mantle of prophethood fell upon Brigham. Additionally, we believe that history has shown the decision to be the correct one. Quote Do you honestly expect this board to believe that there haven't been dozens of splinter churches break away from the Brighamites? Not the same thing is it. The CoC is a splinter from the various splinters of the church of Joseph and has continued to splinter up till present. The CoJCoLDS has an unbroken line and no schisms. Sure there are individual apostacys but nothing of any import in the big scheme of things. Different deal. Quote
Cal Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 Quote Originally posted by LaurelTree@Mar 7 2004, 07:38 PM I have never known a stake pres to be a female either jenda....lo lol Maybe its a new church?Cal, I hear what you are saying...But if I belived in ever studied then I wouldnt belive in god either.....Just a thought Quote You don't have to believe in EVERY study, just the ones that are scientifically valid and stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The Minnesota Twin studies are one of them. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.