"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS Apostle reiterates"

[Suzie]

 

So what this boils down to, if I understand this current issue, is that it is now safe to openly support one iniquity without losing one's temple recommend? Maybe approved isn't the right word...I'm trying to think of a more appropriate word. Sanctioned? I think sanction is appropriate.

 

 

 

Is Elder Christofferson saying that it is now ok to answer yes? It sounds to me like a definite yes. You can express support on Facebook, march in parades, etc. That's the impression I got from the video interview.

 

With this new precedent, will members have the same safety to openly support any other sin or iniquity from losing one's temple recommend? If it's not okay to "support" one iniquity, why is it okay to "support" another? Is the only answer because our leaders say so? Does that make it right in the sight of God? What a slippery slope we have been thrust onto.

 

 

I watched the whole interview, the impression I got was that the Church has no qualms (his words) about members thinking differently on this issue, the Church expects it and embraces diversity of opinion. He gave the example of several Utahn legislators who are members of the Church and yet they have different opinions about it. He also stated that the Church doesn't expect everyone to play the same tune and how boring it would be if they did.

 

And basically he said a member is free to support Gay Marriage and advocate it through Social media and other venues and they do not consider it an organized effort neither an attack to the Church.

 

So what I got  is that a member can support it and advocate it and the Church is okay with that BUT the issue can become one if the member in question now creates an organization or is part of an organization that promotesthe idea that the Church and its leaders got it all wrong and they demand the Church to support Gay Marriage etc. The latter might cause someone to have a disciplinary counsel.

 

Edited March 21, 2015 by Suzie

[bytor2112]

Some members probably have different opinions on adultery too....

Edited March 21, 2015 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Interesting point; and anti-adultery/anti-fornication legislation remains "on the books" in several states (including Utah--they're both theoretically Class B misdemeanors--though I think SCOTUS precedent renders it unenforceable).

[Suzie]

Interesting point; and anti-adultery/anti-fornication legislation remains "on the books" in several states (including Utah--they're both theoretically Class B misdemeanors--though I think SCOTUS precedent renders it unenforceable).

 

 

And you know what? This is something I have been saying for AGES. *We* need to do our own thinking and soul searching on this issue. Someone could easily take Elder Christofferson's words and run with it to support their view point or if tomorrow another leader says the opposite, another member might do the same to support their view and so on. Where do *we* stand?

[carlimac]

And you know what? This is something I have been saying for AGES. *We* need to do our own thinking and soul searching on this issue. Someone could easily take Elder Christofferson's words and run with it to support their view point or if tomorrow another leader says the opposite, another member might do the same to support their view and so on. Where do *we* stand?

 

I stand against it. I think it's detrimental to society and to children as well as going against the laws of nature and God.  

 

Oh wait...you weren't asking me were you. 

[Suzie]

I stand against it. I think it's detrimental to society and to children as well as going against the laws of nature and God.  

 

Oh wait...you weren't asking me were you. 

 

lol Well, It was a rhetorical question but of course, you are free to answer. And the "where we stand?" wasn't about Gay Marriage and whether we support it or not, but more about where we stand with regards to Elder Christofferson's words.

[carlimac]

lol Well, It was a rhetorical question but of course, you are free to answer. And the "where we stand?" wasn't about Gay Marriage and whether we support it or not, but more about where we stand with regards to Elder Christofferson's words.

Were his words something we should agree or disagree with? I guess I don't understand what you mean by that.

[Suzie]

Not necessarily. One could agree, disagree or take no position/stand at all. You can check over my original post with regards to the context of the question.

[NeuroTypical]

I know the difference between loving someone, and supporting them in their sins.

Open question to everyone on this thread: Do you?

 

I know the difference between righteous judgment, and unrighteous judgment.

Same question goes out to y'all.

Edited March 21, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[skalenfehl]

For what it's worth:

 

The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Edited March 21, 2015 by skalenfehl

[Just_A_Guy]

And you know what? This is something I have been saying for AGES. *We* need to do our own thinking and soul searching on this issue. Someone could easily take Elder Christofferson's words and run with it to support their view point or if tomorrow another leader says the opposite, another member might do the same to support their view and so on. Where do *we* stand?

 

Precisely.  I can see the Utah legislature saying "well, these statutes are pointless; so we may as well take 'em off the books"; and the Church just kind of shrugging about it.

 

But if someone then came out and says "Mormon Church says it's OK to support adultery"--that would be pretty misleading; and I think we'd be justified in suspecting that the declarant might have some sort of ulterior motive beyond mere compassion for adulterers.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

And you know what? This is something I have been saying for AGES. *We* need to do our own thinking and soul searching on this issue. Someone could easily take Elder Christofferson's words and run with it to support their view point or if tomorrow another leader says the opposite, another member might do the same to support their view and so on. Where do *we* stand?

 

Precisely.  I can see the Utah legislature saying "well, these statutes are pointless; so we may as well take 'em off the books"; and the Church just kind of shrugging about it.

 

But if someone then came out and says "Mormon Church says it's OK to support adultery"--that would be more than a smidge misleading, doncha think?  :)

[JayGlad]

Been following this thread for a while. Not sure what to say until now.

 

Being converted to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult, perhaps I see things differently than others. I have to ask, in all sincerity, how can anyone who claims to have a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ (and all that implies) stand up and proudly say he supports gay marriage (and all that implies)? The two declarations are diametrically opposed. In all honestly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.

[skalenfehl]

Been following this thread for a while. Not sure what to say until now.

 

Being converted to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult, perhaps I see things differently than others. I have to ask, in all sincerity, how can anyone who claims to have a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ (and all that implies) stand up and proudly say he supports gay marriage (and all that implies)? The two declarations are diametrically opposed. In all honestly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

The only way I can reconcile it, as we still live and function in a fallen state in the telestial world...When the woman taken in adultery was brought before the mortal Christ, He did not judge her. He simply told her, "go, and sin no more." When we are ready, He invites us to "Come, follow me." He gave man agency and did not, does not and will not infringe upon it. 

 

Our church leaders made a deal with Babylon. That's the only way I see it, fundamentally speaking. I have many LGBT friends/coworkers. Some are friends, one whose parents were in my former ward. He finally felt comfortable sending me a friend request on Facebook. Another is a young gal who is not at all religious. She recently married another gal and is very happy. We greet each other with warm smiles and sometimes a big hug. I love her and all my fellow man/woman no matter what. I do not judge. I just love them. I do not and cannot bring myself to support their lifestyle, but I agree that they should have agency to do as they wish, just as I do as I wish. Therefore, I just love them. I can be happy for them only as long as they find happiness in this life. It won't last past this life. The same for anyone of any background, lifestyle, whatever. We are all God's children. I only judge my own walk before God. 

 

Forgive me Lord, a sinner.

[JayGlad]

The only way I can reconcile it, as we still live and function in a fallen state in the telestial world...When the woman taken in adultery was brought before the mortal Christ, He did not judge her. He simply told her, "go, and sin no more." When we are ready, He invites us to "Come, follow me." He gave man agency and did not, does not and will not infringe upon it.  

 

Living in a fallen state neither reconciles nor justifies sinful behavior. If it did, there would be no need for a Savior and the Atonement.

 

Regarding the adulterous woman. The Lord did judge her, but He didn't condemn her--big difference! President Kimball asked, "But did the Lord forgive the woman? Could he forgive her [in her current condition]?" Then he says, "There seems to be no evidence of forgiveness. His command to her was, 'Go, and sin no more.' He was directing the sinful woman to go her way, abandon her evil life, commit no more sin, transform her life. He was saying, Go, woman, and start your repentance; and he was indicating to her the beginning step-to abandon her transgressions." Amulek taught that we cannot be saved in our sins. Think about the depth, breadth and implications of that doctrinal truth.

 

We are members of the House of Israel. We are the covenant people. We are God's elect, as Paul refers to us. Do we as a people fully understand what that means?

 

"A chosen people are called upon to make choices that evidence their covenant with Christ and their loyalty to the fathers. A chosen people are called upon to be true to their covenants. Israel is called to live the gospel.... Israel is called be the light to a world that travels largely in darkness." This cannot be accomplished with one foot in the covenant and the other foot in the world.

 

Plainly put, righteousness requires obedience. If we do not understand the gospel, or worse, if we choose to understand only cherry-picked parts, then it is vital that we come to an understanding before it becomes "everlasting too late."

Edited March 22, 2015 by JayGlad

[skalenfehl]

JayGlad, you misunderstood me--or perhaps I didn't express myself better. I did not say that living in a fallen state justifies sinful behavior. The point I was making, under the circumstances in which we live, is that we have agency. And the fact that we live in this fallen state, requires us to use agency and come unto Christ. But the woman did not come unto Christ voluntarily. She was brought before Jesus Christ against her will. Her agency was infringed upon. Indeed she broke the law (why was the man not brought also?).

 

But Christ refused to be judge and jury. He came to minister in the flesh as the Lamb in mortality, not as the Lion in glory (2nd coming). In His infinite wisdom (He could have accused her accusers and rightly so), He dismissed the case and invited her to repent. He invites us all to repent, to use our agency to come to Him willingly, sins and all, to be healed. She was not brought to be healed, but as a lost sheep, to be slaughtered according to the law. Instead, He chose to teach them all by example, one of the greatest commandments in the law, upon which hang all the law and the prophets. A question to ponder--would He, as the Lamb, have been guiltless before His own law had He cast a stone at her? And if guilty, could He have fulfilled it? 

Edited March 22, 2015 by skalenfehl

[JayGlad]

Skalenfehl, I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, your use of the adulterous woman does not fit here. You're bringing up ideas, concepts and examples that neither fit within nor answer the specifics of my original question. That is, no doubt, why I am confused.

 

The adulterous woman's situation does not a parallel a person claiming to be a disciple of Christ while advocating sinful behavior, such as same-sex marriage.

[The Folk Prophet]

JayGlad, you misunderstood me--or perhaps I didn't express myself better. I did not say that living in a fallen state justifies sinful behavior. The point I was making, under the circumstances in which we live, is that we have agency. And the fact that we live in this fallen state, requires us to use agency and come unto Christ. But the woman did not come unto Christ voluntarily. She was brought before Jesus Christ against her will. Her agency was infringed upon. Indeed she broke the law (why was the man not brought also?).

 

But Christ refused to be judge and jury. He came to minister in the flesh as the Lamb in mortality, not as the Lion in glory (2nd coming). In His infinite wisdom (He could have accused her accusers and rightly so), He dismissed the case and invited her to repent. He invites us all to repent, to use our agency to come to Him willingly, sins and all, to be healed. She was not brought to be healed, but as a lost sheep, to be slaughtered according to the law. Instead, He chose to teach them all by example, one of the greatest commandments in the law, upon which hang all the law and the prophets. A question to ponder--would He, as the Lamb, have been guiltless before His own law had He cast a stone at her? And if guilty, could He have fulfilled it? 

 

I don't think this has anything to do with agency. Punishment for sin is part of agency. Punishment for sin does not force anyone to do anything. If Jesus had proclaimed the woman beyond forgiveness it would not have forced her to come unto him. And, indeed, had she committed the unpardonable sin, it would have been unpardonable. But bringing someone to trial (even against their will) has nothing to do with agency at all. That's akin to a child claiming his agency is being taken away because his parents are making him clean his room. (Something, sadly, a lot of parents believe in the modern parenting age.("I can't force my child to do something. That's taking away their agency!") <-- rubbish!)

 

Jesus not condemning her was more about the Jewish law and tradition to stone those caught in adultery. But even as an analogy to eternal condemnation, He wasn't going to condemn her at that time because it wasn't judgement day. Implicit, and obvious, to the doctrines of Christ is the clear fact that if she did not repent (sin no more) then she would be condemned.

[skalenfehl]

 

The adulterous woman's situation does not a parallel a person claiming to be a disciple of Christ while advocating sinful behavior, such as same-sex marriage.

That is not what I said. And you are only looking at the woman.

Children of Zion have gotten into bed with Babylon.

[Just_A_Guy]

I prefer to think of it as the Children of Zion being wise as serpents (yet harmless as doves).

 

Ultimately, of course, it boils down to whether one believes that the 1st Pres/Q12 know what they're doing (or, at least, that they're sincerely seeking and receiving guidance from the Lord).

Edited March 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

I prefer to think of it as the Children of Zion being wise as serpents (yet harmless as doves).

 

Ultimately, of course, it boils down to whether one believes that the 1st Pres/Q12 know what they're doing (or, at least, that they're sincerely seeking and receiving guidance from the Lord).

Thus why we can choose not to cast stones. For what measure we mete, will be meted to us. Christ did not judge the woman. No measure was meted to her. Had He justifiably cast a stone at her, He must needs have cast a stone at each of her accusers and for that matter, each and every last sinner at Jerusalem. But He came as the Lamb to teach and not as the Lion to judge.

[Just_A_Guy]

To teach, yes . . . to teach repentance, and to admonish to "go, and sin no more". 

 

It is unfortunate that some (not you, of course!) are willing to re-classify these sorts of admonitions as per se stone-casting.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

Exactly. Christ taught repentance. He taught the people how to be perfect. Only His sheep hear His voice. Today, He invites His sheep still to repent. But can the body go where the head doesn't turn? I ask only because you brought up the leadership.

[Just_A_Guy]

Exactly. Christ taught repentance. He taught the people how to be perfect. Only His sheep hear His voice. Today, He invites His sheep still to repent. But can the body go where the head doesn't turn? I ask only because you brought up the leadership.

 

Hmm.  You did state that "Children of Zion have gotten into bed with Babylon".  If that was directed at the membership of the Church--well, by your own logic, who brought them there?  If it was directed at the leadership, then my counterpoint stands. 

 

And if it was directed at some other party, then please do elaborate.  :)

Edited March 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

Hmm.  You did state that "Children of Zion have gotten into bed with Babylon"....

 

Yeah, I was on my cell phone on break at work with limited time. What I was trying to get across in one overarching parallel in just a few words is that any of us can be that woman taken in adultery. Or in other words, who among us is not an idolater? Have you read Gileadi's Twelve diatribes of Modern Israel ? And if any of us, or let me just put myself on the stand, if I am an idolater, a worldly man, am I not expressing infidelity, or rather, unfaithfulness to the Lord? I'm reminded of Isaiah's words:

 

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 52:3 For thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money

 

So in one sense, any of us can be adulterers who go whoring after our idols. Incidentally, I'm still puzzled as to why the woman's accusers did not also drag along the man taken in adultery with her? I have more thoughts on this matter, but for another time. There was obviously a demand at Jerusalem for such whoredoms. Anyway, any of us could be the accusers with stones in hand. Any of us could be "supporters" of gay rights. Any of us could become leaders and some of us probably are. The bottom line is that we are all sinners, regardless of how scarlet our sins may be. God cannot look upon any sin with the least degree of allowance. We are all children of Zion. We have put our mother away and sold ourselves, just as the ancient covenant people. But Zion will yet be redeemed.

 

I think our leaders see things we don't. Perhaps without such legislation, the government could strip the church's non profit status. Who knows. Maybe if they don't make concessions in order to continue to function in its mission, there won't be a church as we know it. Certainly they are not perfect and sinners just like the rest of us. I don't agree with the woman taken in adultery, but I am not going to cast stones. I will not so much as judge her. I don't necessarily agree with what our leaders have done, but maybe it's all they can do right now--"they're sincerely seeking and receiving guidance from the Lord," as you put it. If I recall correctly, the Lord wanted King Zedekiah to ally with Babylon, but instead he allied with Egypt, which was the wrong choice. And so, they faced the consequences and became subject to Babylon the hard way anyway. 

 

In any case, I've already expressed my own personal opinions and feelings on the subject. So I won't repeat myself. But there are different ways to approach this whole matter. I choose not to judge anyone, but instead just try and love everyone. In the end, I want only love to be returned to me. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by skalenfehl