Missionary Numbers - stats, ugh.

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

[1]Those I know would say that the celestial kingdom would be hell if they could not be with the one they love. 

. . . .

[2]Within the church as far as I know we still have free agency. Therefore if gay members choose gay marriage that is between them and the Lord. It is not for me to decide what is best for others or force them into compliance. That was Satan’s plan. 

First off, welcome!

1.  The great lies that this argument is predicated on, are the lies that a) you can’t control who you love; b) that the Lord has no plan for those who were unable to find an appropriate romantic partner in this life; and c) inability to find an appropriate romantic partner justifies sexual profligacy.

2.  That’s an argument against criminalizing sodomy.  It is not an argument justifying civil/state recognition of any marriage, gay or straight.

Also:  my experience is that Mormons who think “Satan’s plan” was to compel everyone to live virtuously, in my experience could be very much edified by asking themselves how such a scheme could possibly work, consider what elements are required for “agency” to exist, and then re-read what the scriptures actually say about Satan’s antemortal offer. 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

. It is not for me to decide what is best for others

But it is up to you to uphold the words of the prophets and bear testimony that sin is evil and gay marriage is sin.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

1) Those I know would say that the celestial kingdom would be hell if they could not be with the one they love. 

2) However speaking in the broader view, as a member of the church I’m not going to deny gay marriage to those of other faiths just because our faith denies it. 

3) Within the church as far as I know we still have free agency. Therefore if gay members choose gay marriage that is between them and the Lord. It is not for me to decide what is best for others or force them into compliance. That was Satan’s plan. 

I wonder if you understand what it is you're saying.

1) "The one they love" meaning what?  You think that I as a heterosexual man cannot love a man?  I do.  All the time.  But you seem to have conflated the meaning of love with lust.  That is the lie that Satan has spun in this world.  And you've bought into it.

2) Who says we do?  The Church fought gay marriage legalization because the leaders knew that the the promise of "religious exemption" was just window dressing.  They're continuing to move the goal posts.  California's law is government intruding on religious teachings.  The Bible will be interpreted as hate speech and all Bible based religions will be shut down.  It was never about denying their right to have their own religious observances.  It was about protecting ours.

3) WE don't decide.  WE don't force.  The Lord calls prophets to declare His word.  And His word is that Homosexual activities are an abomination.  And willfully joining in a gay marriage is apostasy.  There is never force in the Church.  Excommunication is up to the individual to obey or not.  If they believe it is not a sin, yet the Prophet says it is an abomination, then what are they even doing choosing to be a part of a religions with which they have such a disparate view?  Others have done the honorable thing and resigned.  To consider that "force" is a gross mischaracterization of the power of the Church.

Your statements to that effect are basically saying you believe the prophet is wrong.  Are you even LDS?  Former?

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

You may have misunderstood me because what I am saying is that I accept that homosexuals should not be denied love, companionship and intimacy within a homosexual relationship just be that view of marriage does not live up to our expectations and standards of marriage. To each his own. Like I said I’m sure the church will never change its stance but I’m not personally going to deny marriage to gay couples. 

No, I understood perfectly.  That's why I added the comment that I'm surprised at any Mormon who does believe it is ok.

This isn't a topic that has no official Church position or is subject to interpretation.  It has been clearly declared that to be in a homosexual marriage is apostasy.

So, I'll ask again: Are you LDS?  Or have you resigned or been excommunicated?

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[BJ64]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

3) WE don't decide.  WE don't force.  The Lord calls prophets to declare His word.  And His word is that Homosexual activities are an abomination.  And willfully joining in a gay marriage is apostasy.  There is never force in the Church.  Excommunication is up to the individual to obey or not.  If they believe it is not a sin, yet the Prophet says it is an abomination, then what are they even doing choosing to be a part of a religions with which they have such a disparate view?  Others have done the honorable thing and resigned.  To consider that "force" is a gross mischaracterization of the power of the Church.

Your statements to that effect are basically saying you believe the prophet is wrong.  Are you even LDS?  Former?

I never used the word “we” or said the church forces. I said that “I” would not force someone to comply with church standards and that it was between them and the Lord. 

[BJ64]

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

So, I'll ask again: Are you LDS?  Or have you resigned or been excommunicated?

I am a stake clerk. 

[mgridle]

6 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I believe that when you have a dear friend or relative come out as gay you begin to see the issue in a new light and with a new perspective.

Ah, I'm just not as "enlightened" as you are.  Got it.

No, I'd be sad for them-it wouldn't affect me in the least bit, but I would be sad that they have chosen a path that is not approved by God.  Look my 9 year old son saw this heading of the poll and he immediately said wow, Dad that is pretty sad-it should be 0. We have never explicitly taught him this-but he gets it.

Love of man over love of God, that's what it amounts to.

Edited May 6, 2018 by mgridle

[mgridle]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Within the church as far as I know we still have free agency. Therefore if gay members choose gay marriage that is between them and the Lord. It is not for me to decide what is best for others or force them into compliance. That was Satan’s plan. 

That's a cop-out and you know it. First off, you can't be a member and choose homosexual marriage-you will or should be excommunicated-i.e. no longer a member.

[mgridle]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

2) Who says we do?  The Church fought gay marriage legalization because the leaders knew that the the promise of "religious exemption" was just window dressing.  They're continuing to move the goal posts.  California's law is government intruding on religious teachings.  The Bible will be interpreted as hate speech and all Bible based religions will be shut down.  It was never about denying their right to have their own religious observances.  It was about protecting ours.

Exactly, it won't stop until everyone accepts that homosexuality is good and just; it has never been about "rights", it's always been about normalization and 100% acceptance-if you don't agree then you are the bad guy.  It won't stop until you can't even say homosexuality is bad. Illinios just passed a law requiring public schools to teach about the wonderful, glorious contributions of homosexuals to our life-i.e. it is about normalization of homosexuality.

Sure right now they claim it's inborn and something you can't change.  But that is already starting to shift.

Want to know where this is going?  I encourage everyone to read this: For the Strength of Gay Youth (specifically targeted toward LDS youth)

https://affirmation.org/teens/for-strength-of-gay-youth/

This is an organization supported by some active members of the Church (and some local leadership).  Some wonderful falsehoods taught here:

" Again, it is important to understand that we all travel different paths in life. No path is more correct than another and we should never judge a person for the path that he or she travels. "

" if you have been involved in sexual activity with the same sex, it is up to you to decide if this is something your Church leader should be made aware of. "

"As a missionary, you will be with a same-sex companion twenty-four hours a day. It’s not uncommon to hear gay returned missionaries joke about being attracted to their companions, but in fact that kind of sexual tension can be highly stressful. A mission is a time of intense same-sex bonding "

" The biblical writers have never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous and faithful persons sought to live the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. "

" Regardless of your sexual identity, having good friends is important. Choose friends that can support you, no matter what your opinions, views, or choices may be. "

" Each person’s sexuality is a personal and private matter. No one has the right to pass judgment on another person’s sexual practices. Nor does anyone have the right to tell you how you should or shouldn’t express yourself sexually (unless of course you are breaking the law or harming another person in the process) "

" As you learn about your own sexual self, be sure to keep an open mind. Sexuality is not something that can be explored freely while holding on to preconceived ideas. You don’t have to accept or believe the things you’ll learn in your exploration, but be open to new ideas and be careful about passing judgment on those whose sexual practices you may not agree with "

" realize that doing something sexual with another person doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world. Even if you are active in the Church and wish to remain so, life will go on. We are human beings and human beings are sexual beings. God created us this way, so even He understands that humans will be sexual, even at times when they don’t expect to be. "

And on and on and on. Hmm . . .I thought they liked to proclaim it was inborn, innate and unchangeable . . .glad we can clear that up now that it's not inborn b/c you need to learn about and explore freely your sexuality. That doesn't sound very inborn and immutable to me . . .guess I'm just not "enlightened" enough to "know better so I can do better"

It's quite sad that some members are taken in with this sophistry and deceitfulness.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by mgridle

[mgridle]

33 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I am a stake clerk. 

Doesn't surprise me in the least.  And people say, no, no it's not in the Church . . .lol whatever. You are wrong in your opinion and one day you'll find out just how wrong you are. 

Don't worry, though-I'm wise to these shenanigans-if you were in my stake and I knew about your opinions and they were public.  I wouldn't sustain you and I'd raise my hand in opposition to you.

Edited May 6, 2018 by mgridle

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I never used the word “we” or said the church forces. I said that “I” would not force someone to comply with church standards and that it was between them and the Lord. 

None of us would.  So, what was the point you were really making?

Apparently, I don't know what your point actually was since I had assumed that you were making a statement in contrast with what you believed to be the Church policy.  You've disabused me of that assumption.  So, what were you really trying to get across?  That some others do?

[mgridle]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

None of us would.  So, what was the point you were really making?

Apparently, I don't know what your point actually was since I had assumed that you were making a statement in contrast with what you believed to be the Church policy.  You've disabused me of that assumption.  So, what were you really trying to get across?  That some others do?

Carb,

You have to look at the message " It is not for me to decide what is best for others or force them into compliance".

The bolded is the message. It is a way to look good without having to actually take a stand; "I don't know what's best for others".  It's the new non-judgemental, God is just about love, message.  In other words, there is no right or wrong, there is no best path, or best way, it's all up to the individual.

Which is completely at odds with what being a Christian is all about.  Christ says "I am the way, the light, the truth".  The whole point of being Christian is that we know there is a best path, we are taught it, we learn of it and we advocate for it.

Sorry, but this stake clerk (supposedly b/c well it is the anonymous internet afterall!) is no Christian-b/c no Christian would say, whelp it's not for me to decide what is best for others. Totally false-we do know, it is the only true path-following the Savior and following the laws that He set out through the scriptures and by His servants. With those who go down this path, there is no fence around their thinking, no bounds that will eventually not be broken, b/c you see they don't know what is best.

Edited May 6, 2018 by mgridle

[BJ64]

Daniel Woodruff:
“I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks, “do you agree with elements that are against the church?” and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Well, it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position, it is are you supporting, are you supporting organizations that promote opposition, or positions in opposition to the church.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church? If they went out, say, on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. That’s not an organized, you know, effort to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Yes and we, you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, He said you can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate– you can’t compel, you can’t coerce– it has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned, as the words are in the scripture.”

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I read @BJ64 as saying that he doesn’t support violating the law of chastity; he simply wouldn’t use civil policy to enforce religious mores and (presumably) believes that there are no long-term sociological harms associated with gay marriage.  I happen to think his position is deeply mistaken; but as he writes (citing Elder Christofferson), it isn't something that subjects one to LDS ecclesiastical discipline.  

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Also:  my experience is that Mormons who think “Satan’s plan” was to compel everyone to live virtuously, in my experience could be very much edified by asking themselves how such a scheme could possibly work, consider what elements are required for “agency” to exist, and then re-read what the scriptures actually say about Satan’s antemortal offer. 

Hi JAG, could you elaborate on this please? I'm just curious, not challenging or opposing.

[BJ64]

I realize it’s a thing with teenagers but I did not realize that adult members of the church are into bullying, flaming and bashing those who do not agree with them on LDS topic websites. I guess LDS adults are no better than adolescents in this regard. 

My comments were nothing but kind and respectful. That can not be said about several posting in reply to me. 

I suppose I should have thought that members of the church would behave better than that. 

Carborendum, do you go about questioning the membership and faithfulness of everyone here who’s opinions are contrary to yours? 

[BJ64]

Accidental duplicate post deleted

Edited May 6, 2018 by BJ64

[Midwest LDS]

I reject the notion that we should not attempt to stand for correct principles in the law, out of a misguided sense of trying to respect agency. While I respect those who disagree with me (I have many Libertarian friends who believe the government should not be involved in marriage) I can and will continue to oppose homosexual marriage because it leads to unhappiness. I oppose gay marriage the same way I oppose adultery, fornication, theft, and all other sin, because it leads to our permanent seperation from God. I don't care if a sinful activity makes you temporaily happy in this life, this life is transitory, and only a drop in the bucket compared to eternity. Will our friends, who we suported so nobly in their relationships in this life, thank us when they are consumed with the pain of their permanent seperation from God for eternity in the next? I think not. I have a stepsister who came out and married her girlfriend. I feel pain and sorrow for her. I feel badly that she is bearing the burden of a difficult to control sin in a society where, at every turn except the church, she is told that her lifestyle is fine. I pray she will repent, because I love her, and don't want her to be miserable for eternity. She is welcome in my life, and I would never cut her out of it, but it does not change my hope and prayer that she will turn to Christ and stop living in sin while she is here.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I realize it’s a thing with teenagers but I did not realize that adult members of the church are into bullying, flaming and bashing those who do not agree with them on LDS topic websites. I guess LDS adults are no better than adolescents in this regard. 

Let's recap what has happened since I saw that poll.

1) I posted the poll in this thread for comment. Simply posting a statistic is not polite, impoolite, bullying, flaming, or bashing.

2) You responded to that post by making two statements: a) if a loved one is gay, one will change one's position, and b) You equated "denying" gay marriage to "denying" love, companionship, and intimacy.  Nowhere did you say anything about civil policy.  You only mentioned Church policy.

3) After several back and forths, I responded by saying that I apparently misunderstood.  Please clarify it for me so I can better understand you.

4) You chose to be offended at my asking you to clarify.

5) I'll address the questioning your faith below.

Quote

My comments were nothing but kind and respectful. That can not be said about several posting in reply to me. 

As stated above, I did not show any amount of disrespect.

Quote

I suppose I should have thought that members of the church would behave better than that. 

As shown above, it was your choice to be offended at pretty much nothing.

Quote

Carborendum, do you go about questioning the membership and faithfulness of everyone here who’s opinions are contrary to yours? 

Now we get to the question of faith.

1) I don't know you.  I was simply asking a find out question.  You may have taken it as an accusation.  And the way the question was framed, I totally understand that reaction.  But I assure you that it was an honest question.

2) Many things are open to interpretation.  I have my opinions.  And I will discuss them with whoever wishes to listen.  But there are some things that are NOT subject to interpretation.  The "right or wrong" of gay marriage is not one of them.  This is an issue so serious, that if you go just a couple steps further from where you are, you would be considered apostate.  This is dangerous.  This is not a time to gently persuade someone.  It's a time to yell and say "HEY! GET OVER HER!  YOU'RE IN DANGER!"  If I'm wrong, please clarify.

3) This is an internet forum.  Not a family gathering.  Not a church meeting.  Not a social function.  Not work.  An internet forum is specifically a place to present differing ideas and point out where others may have flaws in their logic or evidence.  If you consider this bashing, then don't participate. I don't get offended when others point out flaws in my evidence or logic. Why do you?  There are plenty of people here who hang out simply to socialize.  They usually don't bother commenting on something that is bound to get controversial.  But you did.  So, what do you expect?

4) See below for my response to JAG regarding civil policy.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I read @BJ64 as saying that he doesn’t support violating the law of chastity; he simply wouldn’t use civil policy to enforce religious mores and (presumably) believes that there are no long-term sociological harms associated with gay marriage.  I happen to think his position is deeply mistaken; but as he writes (citing Elder Christofferson), it isn't something that subjects one to LDS ecclesiastical discipline.  

I didn't read anything about civil policy.  But he repeatedly linked Church policy with "denying" homosexual acts.  He repeatedly said "the Church won't change its policy" while stating his support of gay marriage.

I'm all for keeping government out of it.  But he seems to be all for keeping the Church out of it as well.  If I'm wrong, I've asked for clarification several times.  He only chose to get offended at my asking.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Hi JAG, could you elaborate on this please? I'm just curious, not challenging or opposing.

Without going into too much detail, the scriptures never say Satan planned to make people be good.  If anything they say that Satan “persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one” (Moroni 7:17).  In scripture we read that his proposal was a) to “save” all persons, and b) to destroy the agency of man.

Legally speaking, in a principal/agent relationship, there are two components:  the agent is empowered to act, and the principal is bound to the consequences of whatever actions the agent takes.  You can destroy an “agency” relationship, not just by restraining the agent’s ability to act; but by releasing the principal from any liability/accountability for the agent’s actions.  

Scripture, of course, clarifies that we are agents unto ourselves—the principal and the agent are the same person.  You can undermine a person’s agency when you refuse to hold them accountable for the things they have done and shield them from the natural consequences—good or bad— of their behavior.  Telling humankind “do what you want, it doesn’t matter and we’ll all wind up in Heaven eventually” not only destroys human agency; but sounds a lot more like the Satan we all know and love.  

And this whole argument makes a great rejoinder when your snot-nosed teenager whines about how all your rules are “taking away my agency!”:  “Sorry, kid; but Satan’s plan wasn’t lots of rules; Satan’s plan was no rules.”

Edited May 6, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

While I respect those who disagree with me (I have many Libertarian friends who believe the government should not be involved in marriage) I can and will continue to oppose homosexual marriage because it leads to unhappiness.

There is a very wide range in the individual interpretation of the libertarian perspective on marriage.  However, in the most true application of this principle, a couple who claims marriage would not necessarily be recognized as married by others.  For example, if a homosexual couple seeks to purchase a home together, under the correct form of the libertarian model for marriage, a bank could deny a joint application on the grounds that said bank only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.  A different bank might approve the same, because they do not hold such a standard.  The liberty for both parties to make this separate choice is there.  So for those of us opposed to homosexual marriage, there would still be no such thing, because we would not accept it as valid.  Similar to how someone who is baptized without the proper authority, is in the same position as someone who was not baptized at all.  We do not recognize the validity of the baptism before God, so the person is still unbaptized according the principles of the restored Gospel.

[Midwest LDS]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

There is a very wide range in the individual interpretation of the libertarian perspective on marriage.  However, in the most true application of this principle, a couple who claims marriage would not necessarily be recognized as married by others.  For example, if a homosexual couple seeks to purchase a home together, under the correct form of the libertarian model for marriage, a bank could deny a joint application on the grounds that said bank only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.  A different bank might approve the same, because they do not hold such a standard.  The liberty for both parties to make this separate choice is there.  So for those of us opposed to homosexual marriage, there would still be no such thing, because we would not accept it as valid.  Similar to how someone who is baptized without the proper authority, is in the same position as someone who was not baptized at all.  We do not recognize the validity of the baptism before God, so the person is still unbaptized according the principles of the restored Gospel.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

[mgridle]

12 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I realize it’s a thing with teenagers but I did not realize that adult members of the church are into bullying, flaming and bashing those who do not agree with them on LDS topic websites. I guess LDS adults are no better than adolescents in this regard. 

My comments were nothing but kind and respectful. That can not be said about several posting in reply to me. 

I suppose I should have thought that members of the church would behave better than that. 

Carborendum, do you go about questioning the membership and faithfulness of everyone here who’s opinions are contrary to yours? 

There are different levels here.

1a) Support for SSM expressed privately; 1b) Support for SSM expressed publicly-Facebook, twitter,ett., 1c) Support for SSM as affiliated with groups like Affirmation.

Support for SSM b/c

2a) They don't believe government should be involved in the marriage business, 2b) they believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual unions-Mormons don't believe it but no big deal.

3a) Support for homosexual activity expressed privately, 3b) Support for homosexuality expressed publicly--Facebook, twitter,etc., 3c) Support for homosexuality expressed in with groups like Affirmation.

I have perfectly fine with a Stake Clerk who does 1a,2a (i.e. it doesn't leave family or extremely close friends, you know private).  Fine people hold all sorts of varying opinions-doesn't make them right, but no one else except the individual knows about it, so fine whatever.

Let's recap what this individual said:

"Therefore if gay members choose gay marriage that is between them and the Lord. It is not for me to decide what is best for others". 

When someone expresses this publicly, however it is a different matter.  I absolutely agree with the Apostle, no one should be subject to Church discipline for holding an opinion.  However, discipline is a far cry from holding a position of leadership.  No position within the church is a right, no position in the Church is required for exaltation-holding a leadership position is a privilege and a responsibility-not a right.  If a man was called to be Bishop, yet he publicly advocates for abortion or makes it widely known that he favors this-I would not sustain him.

Why is it different for leadership?  Because when someone is in leadership-they are called to lead and if a leader publicly advocates for abortion to be legal say-they will lead the flock astray.  I will not be lead astray-I will not sustain anyone who attempts to lead me astray. Period.

It's not bashing, bullying or any other sort of nonsense-it is a very matter-of fact non-emotional, rational course of action.  If you are a Stake Clerk-you are in a leadership position. And I'm not questioning your faith, I'm simply stating as a matter of fact-based on your comment you aren't Christian.  "If someone murders another human being that is between them and the Lord. It is not for me to decide what is best".  That's not a Christian position. You may claim you are Christian, that is fine, you may believe you are Christian, that is fine,  but your attitude does not conform Christ's words that there is "one way, one path".  It is as simple as that.  It's not bashing, it's non-emotionally stating what is a fact.

As for actual discipline, I would argue 1c and 3c are ground for revocation of a Temple recommend.

And I would also appreciate a direct response if you are referring to me-not a passive-aggressive swipe.  Just directly address it.

As a sidenote, what I think has really happened that has caused much consternation and the Church really hasn't figured out how to deal with it, is the plethora of ways to publicly state your message these days. 15 years ago if you had a position that was out of step with Church teachings, no one really knew about it.  Today you can post a "private" facebook/twitter message and reach 100s or even 10s of thousands of people-that's not private.  The Church for each ward used to (maybe still does) have a media relations department.  But with social media members in leadership positions can advocate for things 100% out of step of the Church and make the claim they are "only doing it in a private setting" and that's a bunch of horse dukey. They can claim they aren't part of any group that teaches contrary to Church teachings, yet they have a megaphone that reaches 1000s of people.

If you are in leadership, best thing to do is keep your mouth shut on social media-or be anonymous so that people do not confuse your opinions with your position.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:05 PM, Carborendum said:

Related issues.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-support-gay-marriage-gradually-grows-192425526.html

I honestly believe that the LGBT movement gaining traction among the saints is what is the main driving force behind less religious devotion in our faith as well as other faiths.

40% of Mormons (self-identified) now favor gay marriage.  I'm having trouble accepting that Catholics and Muslims were much higher.  But there are the numbers.

Growing up Catholic, I can tell you that a surprising percentage are pro choice, so nothing would surprise me. I went from Catholic schools from 6th-12th grade. Only a small minority were vocally pro life. Even some of the teachers were pro choice. 

More and more young people have no problem with gay marriage and what's more troubling maybe is that they don't blindly trust authority anymore. It happened to the Catholic church, it might (key word, might) happen to Mormonism.