Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What does it say in the Scriptures.  In regards to tobacco and alcohol, what does it say in Section 89?  That's doctrine.

It says, in effect: Don't drink alcohol and don't smoke.

But it does not say that we can't produce alcohol and tobacco and sell them to others to use. So that's okay, by the line you've drawn.

Similarly, we know that we should not smoke pot. But that says nothing about raising pot in my backyard, which here in Washington is legal. So if I get a license to sell to stores, then according to you, that's a perfectly okay way to supplement my income.

Do I understand you correctly?

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

But that says nothing about raising pot in my backyard, which here in Washington is legal.

Pot is legal in Washington and you grow it in your backyard? 

That explains a lot of your opinions. 

(playing!)

[JohnsonJones]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

It says, in effect: Don't drink alcohol and don't smoke.

But it does not say that we can't produce alcohol and tobacco and sell them to others to use. So that's okay, by the line you've drawn.

Similarly, we know that we should not smoke pot. But that says nothing about raising pot in my backyard, which here in Washington is legal. So if I get a license to sell to stores, then according to you, that's a perfectly okay way to supplement my income.

Do I understand you correctly?

Well, there are some Mormons in the Marijuana business in California (though I understand they lost over 1/4 of their crop to fire recently). 

I'm not your judge is what I'm saying, and unless I was your bishop I really don't have any thoughts on whether you are good or not good in doing so.  What I do know is that there are those who have done that (or at times, much worse) in the LDS church that have been called to prominent positions of authority and are LDS in good standing.  Who are we to judge what another does when it is not expressly forbidden by scripture?

In those instances, it is between them and the Lord (or sometimes, them and their ecclesiastical leader).  We should also keep in mind that though we have the Word of Wisdom as some grievous thing in our minds, it is actually quite minor on the list of things that would be "bad" in regards to spiritual items.  It is made for the least of those out there...but at the same time, it, in and of itself is not half as major an item as we make it out to be.  On such a minor thing that can be highly personal in the reasons behind them, I'm not going to go out on any limbs and try to apply my personal opinion (which is actually very much in line with the LDS cultural traditions) to anyone not in my arena of leadership (at least currently in this thread, who knows what the future holds).

What we can do, however, if we are going to try to discuss it, is utilize very real examples of those who have held church positions of prominence and relate it to what they've actually done in their businesses. 

I brought up the Marriott's (and Bill Marriott more specifically) due to the items discussed in this thread.  I wanted someone that people might recognize and discuss, but not a General authority so high up in the church that people start condemning the church because of predisposed opinions on LDS doctrine that they fall away because of what General authorities have done prior to being General Authorities.  AKA...a sort of middle ground of prominence, to illustrate someone who had authority in the church but was engaged in a lot of what people are condemning in this thread.

If we are going to analyze what is doctrine and what is not in regards to the LDS church's judgment, we can use someone that anyone can look up, read about, and see all what that individual and their businesses did while at the same time being a minor General Authority as they were a part of the 7th and 8th quorum of the Seventy.

I am very much in agreement culturally with many, but at the same time I recognize that there is a HUGE difference between our cultural and traditional LDS ideas and that of what is actual doctrine (which is where my personal take on caffeine comes in, aka...don't drink it.  Obviously a personal cultural thing on my part more than hard doctrine).

Edited October 31, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You make it seem like being successful is a sin if you live a better lifestyle than others and that your excess should go only to the betterment of the kingdom of God. While I think that someday we will live the law of consecration that day is not today.

How do you feel about out church leaders many of whom are very wealthy and live what some would consider to be opulent lifestyles?

 

Well, if we are true disciples of Christ then, as the scriptures say-

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:21-23)

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted. (Jacob 2:17-19)

The gospel is both clear and exact concerning riches and wealth. It is for the purpose to build Gods kingdom- to clothe the naked, feed the poor, liberate the captive, etc. 

There is a certain degree of pride in ownership of wealth in the church. I think in large part it affects almost all to some degree including church leaders. The scriptures dont lie though- if we are not taking our excess to build the kingdom, giving up our status of "well off" we shall not enter into heaven.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

As to first question, no. All things which are good come from God. God doesn't inspire a father or mother to gamble their paychecks (that is Satan's work). Could he inspire the casino owner to use his services -- yes -- God very well could.

In your own family business I would say that is commendable; however, how then would you interpret the Christian baker who denied a particular service? If God only sent "honest" income earners you would never have had to turn down work from potential income that is not legal, ethical, or godly.

Opposition is still a principle in business, and one way righteousness is brought to pass.

The Christian baker has every right to only bake to whom he wants to and only how and what he wants to bake. Thats his right just as much as its the customers right to go wherever he chooses to "ask" and pay for services if the baker is thus willing.

God sending honest customers our way is more than enough to keep us busy. God isnt however going to intentionally stop a dishonest person from coming our way. We treat our business as a discipleship, a stewardship of service. We pray for our customers, for success in their personal and professional lives as well as ask for our own needs.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, there are some Mormons in the Marijuana business in California 

I feel quite confident that you could find "Mormons" in any business if you cared to. Doesn't mean much by way of justification of pretty much anything.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not your judge is what I'm saying, and unless I was your bishop I really don't have any thoughts on whether you are good or not good in doing so.  

What if I'm selling children into the sex-slave industry to make money?

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We should also keep in mind that though we have the Word of Wisdom as some grievous thing in our minds, it is actually quite minor on the list of things that would be "bad" in regards to spiritual items. 

Wherein do you claim the authority to state this so categorically?

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

What we can do, however, if we are going to try to discuss it, is utilize very real examples of those who have held church positions of prominence and relate it to what they've actually done in their businesses. 

To what end? If brother so-n-so has adult movies in his hotel chain it justifies me selling porn to make extra money? What others get away with sets the standard of right and wrong?

Here's a thought: I don't care whether the church views the sale of tobacco as right or wrong. The tobacco industry has never done any good for anyone ever. It is a vile, loathsome industry. Whereas I'm not going to say anyone who has ever been involved in it at any level is culpable (that would imply every supermarket and quickie-mart employee ever) I'm still going to maintain the opinion that someone growing it is imposing nothing but sickness, death, misery, and destruction upon the world for profit's sake. I know even worse to be true of the evils of pornography, and having a position in the church or not, the distribution of such (for profit or not) is disgusting. These opinions have less to do about the church's stance or implicit responses and more to do about what I know of the destructive forces that things like this are.

That being said, I'm not sure taking an individual who is one cog (even a fairly large one) in a huge industry, where there is certainly a board of directors, etc., and claiming that said individual is culpable for all decisions made in the company which bears his/her name isn't  exactly useful in the what-is-and-isn't-proper-to-do-to-make-money discussion, particularly without knowing the particulars. (I'm not sure it's useful even if said person had all power and explicitly made the decision either...but.....)

If I had my way, pornographers at any level would be fined or jailed -- regardless of what position the church did or did not give them.

Edited November 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wherein do you claim the authority to state this so categorically?

 

This is perhaps something you should take up with the Brethren, the church handbook of instruction, and other aspects of the LDS church. 

Perhaps you should try to give me the punishments as per the guidance given by the Brethren in regards to this, and try to justify why it is considered greater than Murder, Adultery, Fornication, Felony, Blasphemy and Denial of the HG, etc...etc...etc.

At times people try to utilize their own culture and traditions as that of the LDS church, and as such, make harsh judgments against any who do not follow their way of thinking. 

Instead of asking me things of which you should already know or if you do not, giving why you think it is not so...look at the example I've given.

Apply your own judgment towards Bill Marriott, and then ask yourself if that corresponds with how the LDS church reacted (He became part of the 7th and then the 6th quorum of the Seventy).  If it differs, perhaps ask yourself why there is such a drastic difference between what you THINK is doctrine, and what is actually doctrine.

Quote

To what end? If brother so-n-so has adult movies in his hotel chain it justifies me selling porn to make extra money? What others get away with sets the standard of right and wrong?

I'm not so certain your example or excuse holds water.  Is this something that you are considering, and you feel that because the Marriotts had that in their hotel chain it justifies you?  I'm not so sure that's a good attitude to take...

HOWEVER...the truth is, it is between you and your leadership.  Every situation is different, and every individual requires understanding and love.

We should judge righteously, because the judgment we judge with will be the same judgment that we will be judged upon.  Ask yourself, if you are willing to have the same judgment you place upon others as the same that you would be willing to have upon yourself for any and all of your sins?

The church is FAR more forgiving than many think or would like to think in some instances.  It is far more a church for sinners that welcomes us back to Christ with open arms, than a church that wishes to excommunicate for any and every little offense.  Much of what some think others should be excommunicated for these days, is NOT going to be an excommunicable offense in many instances as long as the individual is repentant and desires to change.  There are some which may be clear cut, but most of those are well known and not as minor as some of those things that people are bringing up in this thread.

If you feel these things should be something you should Excommunicate Bill Marriott for, then perhaps you should go and present your case to your Stake President, and then your Area Seventy, and on up the chain and see how far it goes.  I think that would be FAR more educational on why this is FAR more minor in that regard in many instances then something like murder.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones
To try to show more love for Folk Prophet rather than being as harsh in my statements

[JohnsonJones]

Back to the topic, I think the questions Folk Prophet asked in regards in his implications (and what I consider minor may not be what he considers minor, and what he considers major, I might not consider major...I don't know) are very pertinent to what was presented at the beginning of this thread.

I think there is a HUGE problem with many various sins in the LDS church, many of which should probably be confessed to a member of the bishopric.  However, people seem to magnify their own sins to a degree where they fear more than they should, and because of that fear, they never come out and confess.  They never go and seek help.  People tell them that they've committed such a terrible and great sin that they fear that they will be excommunicated for it.

We need to love everyone, but people who do this to their fellow brothers and sisters make me grate my teeth, because they do SO MUCH HARM to the church, to the members, and to others.  If we have a brother or sister that is involved with Word of Wisdom problems and needs help, let them come to ask for help.  I'm not going to kick them out of the church, heck, I'm probably not even going to disfellowship the individual.  To think that we would be so hateful to our fellow members is abhorrent to me. 

And yet, if they have tattoos, or if they have some Word of wisdom problems, or other things that, in truth, are excessively MINOR compared to what really serious sins are, there are those out there that actively ostracize these individuals and literally chase them out of the church.  Why, as Christians, would we EVER do something like that?  It boggles my mind.

Yes, there are some things that can get people excommunicated, but Word of Wisdom problems and things similar to it are normally NOT the things that will do that.  A Felony (such as in the first sentence of Folk Prophet's post above) IS something that may create such a scenario, but there are MANY instances where people have committed relatively minor things (at least in regards to church membership, all sin will cause you to be divided from the Lord, but as the church is concerned, there are those that require more than others in regards to church membership).

We should actively encourage people to join and stay active in the LDS church.  Teaching things that aren't actually our prerogative to teach (such as telling someone who may own a restaurant with a Bar in one section that they are condemned, which is something I have experience in dealing with when members tell other members that) and saying that will make an individual be excommunicated....that's NOT our right nor our line.  Those types of things are between their local leadership and themselves, and if blessed for whatever they are doing, it is not OUR right to say that the church is wrong on it.

I cannot say I'm good on this always.  In fact, I'm probably more like the Pharisees and Sadducees that were hypocrites.  I've come out and said I'm very Mormon in my culture and tradition, BUT I RECOGNIZE that for what it is.  I'm not comfortable many times in the presence of those who may do things I don't consider right, but I am not about to tell those individuals publically that they are committing such terrible sins that they are not going to be allowed in the church or are going to be kicked from it.  If I did that, without good reason, I am MORE of the sinner than they.  I would not want to be in the presence of the Lord due to my fear of what my judgment may be.

In that light, we DO need to be more welcoming.  Those that are committing minor sins need to know that they are not going to meet condemnation when they go to the Bishop's office.  They are not going to automatically be excommunicated.  That doesn't mean it's going to be a cakewalk, (but quitting something like smoking, from what I've seen, normally isn't just a simple and easy thing for most, though some may be able to do it easily), but it's not going to be something so serious that you are going to be excommunicated for it.  In fact, I would hope that they are told (because it's the truth) that instead, they will be met with love and understanding and a desire to help them become better, more than anything else.

In fact, visiting a Bishop for most things we consider on these forums, it's going to be a case that you will be met with love, understanding, and prayer to help you overcome any problems you may be experiencing.  It is not going to be something where you are met with condemnation or strict judgment. 

Now, if you committed premeditated first degree murder...you may want to fear the judgment...but for most of the things we discuss on these forums...they are very Minor.  The desire of the Bishopric should be to HELP...not condemn one out of the church. 

The more people realize that...the MORE I would hope people relax about seeing their bishop and see that when they have problems it is more a step to HELP THEM overcome those problems, than something that they are going to be judged upon harshly, because in truth, compared to the TRULY major sins (murder, adultery, etc), their sins are relatively MINOR.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Who are we to judge what another does when it is not expressly forbidden by scripture?

"Who are we to judge?" Seriously?

We are agents. Judging what happens around us and figuring out the morality of various situations is not merely a good idea, it is our God-given duty. How can you possibly be unclear on this topic?

Elective abortion isn't mentioned in scripture, so therefore we have no business judging the action of elective abortion as being a hideous thing nigh unto murder. Right?

[Vort]

50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is perhaps something you should take up with the Brethren, the church handbook of instruction, and other aspects of the LDS church. 

Perhaps you should try to give me the punishments as per the guidance given by the Brethren in regards to this, and try to justify why it is considered greater than Murder, Adultery, Fornication, Felony, Blasphemy and Denial of the HG, etc...etc...etc.

No, actually, he took it up with you. I'm curious to see your honest answer. Where do you get the authority to make such a blanket statement?

[Vort]

52 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you feel these things should be something you should Excommunicate Bill Marriott for, then perhaps you should go and present your case to your Stake President, and then your Area Seventy, and on up the chain and see how far it goes.  I think that would be FAR more educational on why this is FAR more minor in that regard in many instances then something like murder.

Edited 2 minutes ago by JohnsonJones
To try to show more love for Folk Prophet rather than being as harsh in my statements

LOL! Can't help but notice the totally false, implicitly dishonest final paragraph summing up Folk Prophet's supposed actions contrasted against the pious addendum after the edit. I'll bet the pre-edit version was just a doozy.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

And yet, if they have tattoos, or if they have some Word of wisdom problems, or other things that, in truth, are excessively MINOR compared to what really serious sins are, there are those out there that actively ostracize these individuals and literally chase them out of the church.

An inherently dishonest, absurd, and probably false statement. Sure, "there are those out there" who do such things. There are also "those out there" who embezzle funds, who rape children, and who put flaming bags of dog turd on the porches of neighbors they don't like. But pretending that such actions somehow generalize to the Church as a whole is ridiculous.

I defy you to reference a single case of people literally being chased out of Church because they have a tattoo or smell like cigarette smoke.

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not comfortable many times in the presence of those who may do things I don't consider right, but I am not about to tell those individuals publically that they are committing such terrible sins that they are not going to be allowed in the church or are going to be kicked from it.

Please reference any post in this thread that has done as you describe above. One will do.

[priesthoodpower]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

And yet, if they have tattoos, or if they have some Word of wisdom problems, or other things that, in truth, are excessively MINOR compared to what really serious sins are, there are those out there that actively ostracize these individuals and literally chase them out of the church.  Why, as Christians, would we EVER do something like that?  It boggles my mind.

Its called shunning, and yes its one step short of literally chasing someone away. Anyone who doesnt understand that is in denial, In fact dont some LDS suicides occur not because of literal chasing away but because of shunning?

I am guilty of doing it to others in church as well as others doing it to me. We as LDS are not taught to behave like that but its a natural habit in any group or culture of humans. I am a socially awkward individual, I have felt shunned in every place from LDS wards to various work places and even academic institutions. 

[lostinwater]

i don't know.  my family has some experience with what it's like to be an'unacceptable in the church.  And by unacceptable i mean that you are different from the ideal beyond the level of accepted variance.  Of course, people won't tell you to leave.  At least i've never seen it.  Such an action is not permissible - and i am glad for that.  But a goodly portion of the neighborhood kids will stop playing with your kids - has happened multiple times to people i know.  Or you'll see previously good friendships disintegrate into a series of awkward and rushed interactions.   If you're in a singles ward, your chances of getting a date are almost non-existent.  It's difficult to describe - almost as if others see you as this dark and frightening thing that cannot be trusted (that cannot be and yet somehow is, to quote CS Lewis) - that is somehow 'wrong'.  A feeling of 'you are bad until you change' bleeds from everything.  Can hardly come as a surprise that this is at least as effective in communicating the message that 'you, as presently constituted, are not wanted here.'

And that feeling of 'i am bad' and the associated inward and outward anger that results from it is particularly toxic in the person who has been taught to believe that membership in the church is the most important thing there is.  i've lost 2 ex-member friends, who couldn't reconcile that feeling of 'i am bad' with the lifetime of ideals drummed deep into their psyche from the day they were born - to suicide.  One of those friends after they read in the Miracle of Forgiveness that it's better that someone should be dead than be immoral.

Don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to spew hatred.  It's the Mormon Church, and so they have every right to create their own rules.  Perhaps less rules, than culture and a set of characteristics that constitute the ideal.  And a great amount of good in the world has come about from the people who hold those ideals sacred.  And it would be a ,generally, unreasonable expectation to believe that the church is obligated to change their definition of what is or is not acceptable merely because others disagree with their definition.  But i honestly doubt that a lot of the stuff they focus on the most will be all that important in the eternal scheme of things.  Same could be true of some of the things i focus on too, no doubt.

Though i guess most of us - like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof - has a line past which those who cross it must be treated differently.  

Right now, i think for most members it's quite comfortable somewhere around the level of tattoos, decaf green tea but trying to stop, and watching the Superbowl but feeling bad about it.  

Of course, i know that my perspective on this is completely different from the perspective of most others on this forum.  And i also know - and understand why - others have to say that my perspective is actually not really a valid perspective at all.  To even admit the possibility that another perspective might be more accurate than the current ideals would send the whole world view crashing to the ground.

Anyways, won't comment on this thread anymore.  i didn't write this to start an argument.  Just to express beliefs.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

HOWEVER...the truth is, it is between you and your leadership. 

No, it most certainly is not. If someone is perpetrating pornography upon the world it is between every reasonable civilized person in the world and that person. Those who believe otherwise are culpable themselves.

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Ask yourself, if you are willing to have the same judgment you place upon others as the same that you would be willing to have upon yourself for any and all of your sins?

Yes. If I sell pornography I should be fined, jailed, and my soul damned unless I repent.

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The church is FAR more forgiving than many think or would like to think in some instances. 

And yet the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. I think that ought to be the broader concern.

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is far more a church for repentant sinners that welcomes us back to Christ with open arms,. 

Fixed it.

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

than a church that wishes to excommunicate for any and every little offense.  Much of what some think others should be excommunicated for these days, is NOT going to be an excommunicable offense in many instances as long as the individual is repentant and desires to change.  There are some which may be clear cut, but most of those are well known and not as minor as some of those things that people are bringing up in this thread.

If you feel these things should be something you should Excommunicate Bill Marriott for, then perhaps you should go and present your case to your Stake President, and then your Area Seventy, and on up the chain and see how far it goes.  I think that would be FAR more educational on why this is FAR more minor in that regard in many instances then something like murder.

A. Selling porn is not a "little" offense. B. Were we talking about excommunication? The discussion, as I've read it, has been about whether it is morally justifiable to pursue certain things in order to make money or not. Whether someone "ought" to be excommunicated for selling porn or not is another discussion -- and I agree it's between said person and their ecclesiastical leaders, though I don't have much of a problem with the general idea that an unrepentant purveyor of pornography might well face just such a fate. 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

And yet, if they have tattoos, or if they have some Word of wisdom problems, or other things that, in truth, are excessively MINOR compared to what really serious sins are, there are those out there that actively ostracize these individuals and literally chase them out of the church.  Why, as Christians, would we EVER do something like that?  It boggles my mind.

I think that's from a different era. Thirty five years ago-maybe this happened. In 2017? Nope. I've gone to church functions in shorts and a t shirt with my tattoos out and absolutely no one cares. I also make frequent references to coffee, tea, drug use, and cigars on my social media account and again, no one says anything. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Its called shunning, and yes its one step short of literally chasing someone away. Anyone who doesnt understand that is in denial, In fact dont some LDS suicides occur not because of literal chasing away but because of shunning?

I am guilty of doing it to others in church as well as others doing it to me. We as LDS are not taught to behave like that but its a natural habit in any group or culture of humans. I am a socially awkward individual, I have felt shunned in every place from LDS wards to various work places and even academic institutions. 

I'm so sorry this happened to you. Being socially awkward can be such a burden. Hope things are working out for you my friend. 

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i don't know.  my family has some experience with what it's like to be an'unacceptable in the church.  And by unacceptable i mean that you are different from the ideal beyond the level of accepted variance.  Of course, people won't tell you to leave.  At least i've never seen it.  Such an action is not permissible - and i am glad for that.  But a goodly portion of the neighborhood kids will stop playing with your kids - has happened multiple times to people i know.  Or you'll see previously good friendships disintegrate into a series of awkward and rushed interactions.   If you're in a singles ward, your chances of getting a date are almost non-existent.  It's difficult to describe - almost as if others see you as this dark and frightening thing that cannot be trusted (that cannot be and yet somehow is, to quote CS Lewis) - that is somehow 'wrong'.  A feeling of 'you are bad until you change' bleeds from everything.  Can hardly come as a surprise that this is at least as effective in communicating the message that 'you, as presently constituted, are not wanted here.'

And that feeling of 'i am bad' and the associated inward and outward anger that results from it is particularly toxic in the person who has been taught to believe that membership in the church is the most important thing there is.  i've lost 2 ex-member friends, who couldn't reconcile that feeling of 'i am bad' with the lifetime of ideals drummed deep into their psyche from the day they were born - to suicide.  One of those friends after they read in the Miracle of Forgiveness that it's better that someone should be dead than be immoral.

Don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to spew hatred.  It's the Mormon Church, and so they have every right to create their own rules.  Perhaps less rules, than culture and a set of characteristics that constitute the ideal.  And a great amount of good in the world has come about from the people who hold those ideals sacred.  And it would be a ,generally, unreasonable expectation to believe that the church is obligated to change their definition of what is or is not acceptable merely because others disagree with their definition.  But i honestly doubt that a lot of the stuff they focus on the most will be all that important in the eternal scheme of things.  Same could be true of some of the things i focus on too, no doubt.

Though i guess most of us - like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof - has a line past which those who cross it must be treated differently.  

Right now, i think for most members it's quite comfortable somewhere around the level of tattoos, decaf green tea but trying to stop, and watching the Superbowl but feeling bad about it.  

Of course, i know that my perspective on this is completely different from the perspective of most others on this forum.  And i also know - and understand why - others have to say that my perspective is actually not really a valid perspective at all.  To even admit the possibility that another perspective might be more accurate than the current ideals would send the whole world view crashing to the ground.

Anyways, won't comment on this thread anymore.  i didn't write this to start an argument.  Just to express beliefs.

Wow. I'm sorry this happened to you as well.Maybe my interactions are different. I guess shunning does happen but I've never experienced it. So sad it happened to you. It's unacceptable and completely against out beliefs.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I think what @lostinwater is describing is less about shunning and more about the natural order of things related to friendship. When you're friends with someone it's typically for a reason. If those reasons change, the natural result is going to be that you are less friendly with one another. I seriously doubt that very many LDS folk intentionally "shun" others except when and where reasonable and appropriate (as an extreme example, I shun serial killers and don't let known pedophiles babysit my children). I don't think it's valid that we have a blanket principle that we will always let our kids play with others , period. There are times, I'm sure, where parents have erred on the side of caution when they probably shouldn't have. I think it also just as likely that many times when parents no longer have/let their kids play with others there is darned good reason for it. I think judgment, care, and a close following of the Spirit is necessary in these things. As to the natural order of lost friendship when you no longer hold the things in common with someone upon which that friendship was based...I do not know the answer.

Edited November 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

"Who are we to judge?" Seriously?

We are agents. Judging what happens around us and figuring out the morality of various situations is not merely a good idea, it is our God-given duty. How can you possibly be unclear on this topic?

Elective abortion isn't mentioned in scripture, so therefore we have no business judging the action of elective abortion as being a hideous thing nigh unto murder. Right?

This thread is about the LDS culture I see a LOT of.  People who think they should condemn a farmer for growing tobacco, or some individual that has a restaurant with a bar in one section, or someone who is a hotel manager that has other things in the hotel rather than say...hey, I'm a sinner too, maybe my sins are MUCH worse than theirs.  Instead, they want to notice the mote in another's eye.

This is why we brought up Bill Marriott, who, if you missed it, is the topic of conversation.  My discussion was centered around him, because he is a real life example of many things in this thread that were discussed (tobacco products, some of his hotels did far worse than growing tobacco, which could be sold to the medical industry or others, they actually distributed tobacco products to a small degree in some parts of the world).  Hence, when I say that's between him and his leaders, and in most instances if it is even considered a sin these days in relation to other members, are minor sins, if you have an issue with it, take it up with your Local leadership.  If you disagree with the 12 apostles and their decisions in regards to him, like Folk Prophet, instead of asking me where I get my authority on this...

Why don't you ask them...because you are asking why Bill Marriott is not punished and making that judgment without discussion or justification. 

This is why I defaulted constantly to saying it is a matter between him and his local leadership, because unlike many sins, the things he did, and many of the things brought up in this thread are circumstantial and each situation is different.  These are not major sins which are normally understood to bring about church punishments to the degree that one would get disfellowshipped or excommunicated.  They are not things that are pretty clearly spelled out as requiring major punishments in my experience.

Let's be clear here, when we talk about major sins, we are talking about sins that can possibly lead to excommunication.  If there is a difference of what major and minor mean, that's the bar I utilize. 

The better question then is WHY someone would want to tell others that sins that are not as serious as murder or adultery, are impressed upon by some members towards others to the point that?  Why would members WANT to chase others away?

What gives you the authority to chase away the children of the Lord from his gospel?

Putting it on the other foot what gives YOU the authority to declare something as a major sin when it is NOT considered even up for major punishment as per all the advice we are given?

I see an awful lot of people trying to gather their own authority OVER the 12 apostle or even the seventies in trying to declare things that do NOT even warrant a major punishment as such, not just in this thread, but MANY threads.

That is exactly what this thread started about, why we try to chase these people away with NO AUTHORITY NOR RIGHT to do so.  What gives YOU or FP that authority?

 

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What if I'm selling children into the sex-slave industry to make money?

 

Most of the things up to when Folk Prophet came out and proposed he commit not only a Federal Crime, human trafficking, and an International Human Rights violation, were NOT crimes and many of them would not even get one disfellowshipped.

On the otherhand, when he made the above item, his statements not only were excessively insultive, in some nations they are close to constituting a crime in and of themselves.   Unlike growing tobacco, Human Trafficking is a VERY SERIOUS thing to bring up and many areas the comments  like his are not taken lightly.  Unlike many of the things discussed in this thread which DO cause LDS members to shun others, this is something that in some places, the questions arise about someone when they mention these things.  There is a VAST gulf of difference between the one who is growing tobacco, or any other sort of thing, and Human trafficking.  While I may politely say things are between someone and their leader...that someone could even THINK about such a thing as being anywhere close to related to what Bill Marriott has done, who IS a member in good standing as far as I know...is just...WOW.

I will say many things mentioned in this thread up until his rather gross statements, were things that are very dependent on the situation, and as we saw with the Marriotts do not truly constitute something at times that culture and tradition may say they do.  However, on the disgusting things he was starting to bring up, the LDS General authorities have been VERY CLEAR upon in that this is an offense which one can be excommunicated for. 

This isn't something that is questionable, it normally is open and shut.  In that light, comparative of the punishments that are given, his is not even relative.  Having been in nations where human trafficking is common, and slavery of children and others occurs, and the terrible things that are caused by it that I doubt many here could even imagine, I have been VERY polite considering his statement and attempted comparison between a former General authority, and those who commit acts that go against not just Federal Law, but International rights.

You may take such things as Human Trafficking lightly in the US, but his comparison is frankly, so far out in left field that I have no idea why he felt he was even justified to try to bring something like that up.  I have a VERY LOW tolerance for such things, and even worse to compare that to what a former General Authority did with out any real backing of why that is even a valid comparison...We are supposed to love everyone, and I try, but some are harder to love than others.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think what @lostinwater is describing is less about shunning and more about the natural order of things related to friendship. When you're friends with someone it's typically for a reason. If those reasons change, the natural result is going to be that you are less friendly with one another. I seriously doubt than very many LDS folk intentionally "shun" others except when and where reasonable and appropriate (as an extreme example, I shun serial killers and don't let known pedophiles babysit my children). I don't think it's valid that we have a blanket principle that we will always let our kids play with others , period. There are times, I'm sure, where parents have erred on the side of caution when then probably shouldn't have. I think it also just as likely that many times when parents no long have/let there kids play with others there is darned good reason for it. I think judgment, care, and a close following of the Spirit is necessary in these things. As to the natural order of lost friendship when you no longer hold the things in common with someone upon which that friendship was based...I do not know the answer.

Actually, it goes FAR beyond that, as you have demonstrated in this thread.  People take their own culture and then try to make it so that anyone who doesn't do what they think, is committing a grave sin.  Not a conservative or a Republican, then they'll start saying things about them being gross sinners and terrible people.

They'll ask why they are not excommunicated for the most minor offenses, and then ask what gives someone else the authority to NOT excommunicate them for such a minor thing.

Instead, the real question is what gives THEM the authority to decide such minor things should be things to excommunicate others.  What gives them the right to over ride any counsel from the General Leadership of the LDS church?

These individuals will do all they can to get those they do not like out of the church.  This goes FAR beyond what you are describing.  It's an active thing where, because someone is different, they'll do what they can to force someone out of the ward and church doing all they can possible, even if that individual has committed NO real sin.

As an example, in my ward we have a large number of minorities (mostly Hispanics).  We have a very low attendance of minorities.  We do have one that attends.  Multiple occasions have come up where members come to the Bishopric and either make false accusations, or say they just cannot work with the minorities and having minorities there make them uncomfortable, or other such things.  They aren't telling that member not to come, but they are taking an active role in trying to force that member away and out of the ward and the church.  Personally, I have things to do with my time, but I need to smile and be very nice.  However, it makes me VERY understanding, at least to a degree when others minorities in our ward talk about how they do not feel welcome, how they feel there is racism, or how they feel like they are not represented at all in our local area.

And yes, they don't allow their kids to play with the minorities kids.  I've seen it where the kid were starting to be friends and the parents then tell their kids directly not to play with the other kids.  They won't tell the minorities, but they will tell their kids.  When the kids are young enough, at times those kids will come right out and say it as well, which gives no mystery as to what is happening to me or any of the others.

Yes, no one has told them they are not welcome directly to their faces, but the actions of the ward members speak loudly enough for any of them to hear.

This is against what the church stands for and what the church is about.  Yet, we see it occur FAR too much.  It isn't just those with tattoos, it's many of the members out there that have been isolated away that we need to welcome back with open arms, that we need MORE of in our church.  If we had all the minorities in my ward come out, we'd have enough active members for another ward!  That's a massive number of inactives.  There is a huge push in recent years to activate inactive members, but rather than hearing the advice of some of the 12 apostles out there, we'd rather judge and be judgmental in accordance with how our culture has been before, rather than listening to what they say.

Now there is no one set reason why people leave, there are MANY different and varied reasons.  However, the big takeaway is that we should always be welcoming to others, and instead of shunning, ask them to come join with us and be part of our culture, our church, and our religion.  Here's a great talk on the topic that includes far more than what I stated above.

Come Join with us

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

@JohnsonJones, although I really shouldn't have to explain this, you clearly don't understand.

In response to your statement, "I'm not your judge is what I'm saying, and unless I was your bishop I really don't have any thoughts on whether you are good or not good in doing so." I rhetorically asked, essentially -- What about something more severe, for example, the sex-slave industry? Meaning, is your statement universal or do you only apply the "I'm not your judge" idea to certain actions?

The hyperbolic nature of my question is, as should be obvious, meant to express the idea that eventually, at some point, you should be my judge and should have thoughts on whether I am good or not good in doing something. The idea that you propose that I'm comparing tobacco usage to it in level of severity is a nonsensical, shortsighted response. Because...duh.

The idea here is that, as I have said, at some level of severity we should judge each others actions as right or wrong. The disputation amounts to where we draw the line. My inference that you implied there is no line -- we simply shouldn't judge -- in my opinion, needed to be clarified or corrected. I expect you agree that there is, actually, a line, and that we should, at some level, judge others for their behaviors and actions. If you disagree with this then we are at an impasse. If you, as any reasonable sane person would, agree that those selling children into the sex-slave industry deserve our judgment, then we can safely move forward in agreement on the idea that there is, indeed, a line, and only its position is being questioned.

I'm gathering you believe that line to be whether one is excommunicated over a matter, and/or, whether something is legal or not? Is that accurate? Or do you think the line can ever be applied to more moderate instances of morality and the application thereof?

[zil]

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

...[war and peace]...

To summarize:  You all are wrong to say that something someone else is doing is wrong.

Edited November 1, 2017 by zil
PS: At least to my memory, what we actually said was "this behavior is wrong"

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This thread is about the LDS culture I see a LOT of...This is why we brought up Bill Marriott, who, if you missed it, is the topic of conversation.

Not so. The topic of conversation is a MormonHub article, where the author claims the Church needs more tattooed people, more smokers, and more homosexuals attending. I was one of the first responders to the thread, wondering why the author did not call out our pressing need for more pedophiles to attend Church. I pointed out the hypocritical nature of his entire article. You might do well to reread this thread from the beginning to recall what it's about.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

People who think they should condemn a farmer for growing tobacco, or some individual that has a restaurant with a bar in one section, or someone who is a hotel manager that has other things in the hotel rather than say...hey, I'm a sinner too, maybe my sins are MUCH worse than theirs.  Instead, they want to notice the mote in another's eye.

Another false characterization. I was the one to bring up the example of a tobacco farmer, and I did so in this context, as one of a list of items asking whether Jesus would do those things. Again, I encourage you to reread the thread from the beginning so you can keep track of what's being talked about and why.

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you disagree with the 12 apostles and their decisions in regards to him, like Folk Prophet, instead of asking me where I get my authority on this...

Why don't you ask them...because you are asking why Bill Marriott is not punished and making that judgment without discussion or justification. 

JohnsonJones, this is not hard. Seriously, it's straightforward. YOU, not the apostles, made the claim that the Word of Wisdom violations were "quite minor". Thus it is YOU, not the apostles, whose place it is to justify that statement.

The Folk Prophet and I have no argument with the apostles. I doubt there are two people on this list who have more respect for them or who listen more closely to their teachings. Rather, we have an argument with your teachings, and we therefore ask you to substantiate your authority for such a pronouncement.

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Let's be clear here, when we talk about major sins, we are talking about sins that can possibly lead to excommunication.

No, we are not.

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is exactly what this thread started about, why we try to chase these people away with NO AUTHORITY NOR RIGHT to do so.  What gives YOU or FP that authority?

The same entity that gives YOU the right to RAPE SMALL ANIMALS.

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have a VERY LOW tolerance for such things

How's your tolerance for people who freely change the topic of conversation, avoid responding to direct questions, and take others to task for not talking about what they want to?