settle a dispute


mdfxdb
 Share

Recommended Posts

It appears the church has a zero tolerance on this particular transgression, even if happens once, or heaven forbid twice anywhere with any type of mission window then you cannot serve.  I do not think this is right. 

 

It appears? From where? Where do you get this? We even have a specific example given in this thread by Windseeker that directly refutes what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears so because one of the first responses of the thread was:  "Per the first 2 questions (prevent from mission and entering MTC), the answer is going to be yes, per prophetic direction."

 

 

Wind seeker refuted nothing.  He stated he had a problem while on his mission, not what his conversations were like with his bishop and stake pres prior to leaving.  For all I know they didn't ask, or he didn't tell....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears so because one of the first responses of the thread was:  "Per the first 2 questions (prevent from mission and entering MTC), the answer is going to be yes, per prophetic direction."

 

Yes, that was a generic answer to a generic question. The details have been very much cleared up throughout, so why are you insistent on harping upon this zero tolerance idea?

 

Wind seeker refuted nothing.  He stated he had a problem while on his mission, not what his conversations were like with his bishop and stake pres prior to leaving.  For all I know they didn't ask, or he didn't tell....

 

*shrug*

 

If zero tolerance were the policy you don't think mission presidents are in the loop on it?

 

I will grant, there is a difference between being on a mission and prepping for one, and there should be a more rigid standard applied to qualifying to go. Qualifying to go is a matter of delay. Being sent home is an end. Of course you will doggedly take that to mean more support for your zero tolerance conspiracy theory...but so be it.

 

Speaking of which, what's the big problem with delaying a mission by a month or two to clear things up? You're acting like a bishop asking a young man to wait a few months and really get his worthiness in order is the end of the world - oh woe is me, my life and salvation are spent!  ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected, while masturbation is not mentioned in handbook 1 self-abuse is:

 

 6.7.1
When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary

A disciplinary council normally is not necessary in the following instances.

Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom, who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have single handedly ruined CTR rings for me.

Q

 

Sorry Quinn :unsure: , 

 

I failed to mention he was only my Mission President for about 3 months. He didn't speak the language and wasn't there to win any friends. He was called specifically to purge our mission of some corruption. As an example missionaries were having english club parties where you dress in white and get "dunked" as part of the  initiation, and there were also situations where the missionaries ran afoul of some undergound organizations. The mission President for the rest of my mission was a native of that country.

 

Qualifications were different back then. One of my friends from my mission chewed tobacco until the day he left for the MTC, his Bishop said "there's no chewing tobacco where your going so good luck". I doubt that would pass the muster now days.

 

..and back to the point, certainly not all missionaries who wear CTR rings have trouble with the "m" word.    -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does self-pleasure prevent an otherwise worthy individual from leaving home, and serving a mission.  From entering the MTC?  Would someone get sent home for this? 

 

What quantifies a "problem" with this behavior?  How much of this behavior is acceptable, how much is not?  Under what circumstances should it be discussed with church leadership?

Now, I may not fully understand the LDS' obsession with not 'thinking about', not 'talking about' and definitely not 'doing' masturbation, because I am a five year convert, having come from a 'mainstream' Christian church. However, my experience with LDS families is that it is such a taboo subject that most families don't even discuss sex, or sex ed at all with their children. Don't DO, don't Think about anything sex related until your wedding night, and then you won't have any idea what to do, how to please your wife (or husband), or even possibly, just where babies come from. I'm serious! What is the anti-sex obsession? And please don't tell me about "Purity", Virtue", or "Saving one's self". Masturbation is perfectly healthy and perfectly normal. Now, like anything in life, if it becomes an obsession, only then is it a problem. And I just love how a lot of LDS members make up their own rules. A member of the Elder's Quorum in my ward recently told me that we are not saved "Unless" we do as many good works as possible, we have as many kids as possible (you know, the whole 'bring souls to earth so they will have a body thing", and also that we must do as much Temple work as possible, or we will not be saved. I quoted him this page from Mormon.org and politely asked him to leave my house. 

 

http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/jesus-christ   clearly states that through God's Grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we ARE SAVED. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to do Temple work, and do good works (deeds). We do, and by doing so, we are further "Exalted". But salvation is not dependent upon works. 

 

Anyway, lighten up on the masturbation thing. It seems most LDS members have there panties in a bunch. (Oops., that's right, Women in the church who have a Temple Recommend aren't 'allowed' to wear panties or undergarments anyone else in the Christian world would consider 'normal'. )  So uptight. It's sad.

 

I, by the way, am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but I disagree a lot with what happens in the wards. And I don't agree with a lot of the Doctrine. That said, I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe in God, I believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet, and I believe the Book of Mormon is from God.    ...Oh, and I believe Brigham Young was an evil man who stole control of the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I close this thread, I'm going to point out something very obvious, but completely missing from this thread.

 

The Church is administered through imperfect people who are entitled to receive revelation and let the Spirit guide their decisions.  The CHI is there to help support leaders in making these decisions, but if there were "hard and fast rules" for every gray area, they wouldn't be gray, and there would be little need for leniency, mercy, and leadership.  The Church would be purely adminstered by the handbook, and removing any spirit of discernment from each and every leader.

 

That being said, anyone can have whatever view they want on the subject.  Let Bishops, Stake Presidents, and Mission Presidents preside over their stewardships.  Let us sustain them, even with broad and different ways of administering church discipline.

 

Let us work out our own salvation, and not worry about what everyone else is doing or getting away with.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/50888-new-rules-for-sexual-discussion/

 

This thread is now closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share