The next logical step

[Grunt]

48 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I find it ironic that it’s ok to accuse me and 50% of the youth of not following the spirit. The moment I do it I get lambasted. I’m willing to say I made a mistake. Are you?

I'm pretty comfortable with my realization that I'm on the side of Christ and Prophets.   Can you say the same?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

You know, I keep going back and forth...

You've always struck me as a wishy-washy moderate on most issues. Grow a backbone and take a side dude. 

(playing!) 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You've always struck me as a wishy-washy moderate on most issues. Grow a backbone and take a side dude. 

(playing!) 

Yeah, he's just about the most timid person on the forum.  Sometimes, I just don't even notice what he says.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Yeah, he's just about the most timid person on the forum.  Sometimes, I just don't even notice what he says.

Dude has some serious issues, but if we turned this into a thread about his problems, it would be 10,000 pages in two minutes. 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think Tyme brings up some very important and interesting points.

I have a thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tends to reflect popular culture, but lags behind it by around 30 years.  Thus, things that were brought up previously eventually get accepted, but several years later than it was in popular society.

Thus, I DO have this thought, especially when seeing how many young people are more accepting of homosexual actions (and, as Tyme suggests, I think it is growing...as per the link listed it shows close to 50% of those between 18-29 accepting it) that this will become more and more accepting within membership inside the Church.

In 20 or 30 years time, if you are still alive, and if the Church suddenly decides that they will accept these types of engagements...what would our reaction be.

If you asked me 30 years ago if we would ever reduce Preisthood to two meetings a month I would have laughed and said...that's not going to happen.  If you had told me 20 years ago that we would no longer have hometeaching...I would have said you are dreaming.  If you had said 30 years ago unendowed and Non-Melchizedek Priesthood Holders would do ordinances in the temple, or that woman would be sealed to more than one husband I'd say that was definitely NOT going to happen.  That doing so could be offensive to the Lord...and yet...here we are.

If an over riding membership of the church eventually feels this way, and most of our current crop of apostles are gone and we have new ones in with new views...what might happen?

If they decided to do this, does that mean the Church has fallen into apostasy?  If so, what would we do then or how would we realize it?

If they decided to do that, and it was approved by a majority of the church (I am set enough in my ways I would think a vote on this would NOT go unanimously), what choices would we have?

I'm not saying such a thing would happen or will happen.  However, with how the Church is doing things and some of the unexpected things they have done in the past 20 years...there's not much they would do now that would actually surprise me.

The question I think falls back onto what the Church is there for.  Is it there because it is infallible and it's leaders are infallible, or is it a vessel to carry the gospel and ordinances of the Lord?

If it is a vessel, how far can it fall off track before it is considered apostate and the authority of the Priesthood is no longer recognized by the Lord? 

If it CAN fall off track, has it fallen a little bit off already, or is it still strongly centered? 

I think the thread brings up more on how immoveable certain beliefs are and how we feel they are immoveable.

To me, it brings up a bigger question though that is unanswered....it's the WHAT IF.

We say...it will NEVER happen, but I've said it before and it happened...multiple times.

The analogy to Blacks and the Priesthood is also an apt one.  If you asked me in the 60s and early 70s I'd have said...not in my lifetime. 

The question then is WHAT IF something we think will never happen...happens.

What choice would we make at that point?

For me, it's been to stay in the church and with the church and follow the gospel.  But what IF...something we don't expect actually DOES occur.  What happens then?

PS: Personally, right now I think the doctrine of the church is clear, but things have changed drastically before and things that I would have NEVER thought would happen or would even be close to being approved in the church (see above with temple ordinances) have actually happened.  To me it means that who knows what the future will bring.

Dude.  This is a bunch of crock.  They won't even let us drink COFFEE!  That was made popular like.... 200 years ago!

[SpiritDragon]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dude.  This is a bunch of crock.  They won't even let us drink COFFEE!  That was made popular like.... 200 years ago!

Not to mention premarital heterosexual sex has been popular for a long time as well. With the homosexual population making up around 2% of the population compared to the other 98% if the idea was to cater to popular ideas wouldn't the church start by making immorality okay to the larger group or everyone. The thing is, of course, that such a teaching would let people know the church is no longer true, if it ever was (at that point). 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, SpiritDragon said:

Not to mention premarital heterosexual sex has been popular for a long time as well. With the homosexual population making up around 2% of the population compared to the other 98% if the idea was to cater to popular ideas wouldn't the church start by making immorality okay to the larger group or everyone. The thing is, of course, that such a teaching would let people know the church is no longer true, if it ever was (at that point). 

Yeah.  Especially since you can't baptize somebody who is living with his/her partner.  They'd have to get married first.  How many people have been denied baptism because of this!

[SpiritDragon]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah.  Especially since you can't baptize somebody who is living with his/her partner.  They'd have to get married first.  How many people have been denied baptism because of this!

Where is the outrage. Why aren't men and women marching on temple square holding hands while listening to their anthem, "Love Child" ... wait that song actually speaks against having a love child. I'll have to work on an anthem

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Dude has some serious issues, but if we turned this into a thread about his problems, it would be 10,000 pages in two minutes. 

Be n't angry with this fellow, I protest
That many a true word hath been spoke in jest.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm pretty comfortable with my realization that I'm on the side of Christ and Prophets.   Can you say the same?

Prophets, schmophets.  I’m just here for the food.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Prophets, schmophets.  I’m just here for the food.

Having tried funeral potatoes once, if you are here for the food then I feel truly sorry for you. 

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have a thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tends to reflect popular culture, but lags behind it by around 30 years.  Thus, things that were brought up previously eventually get accepted, but several years later than it was in popular society.

I can see why folks think this.  When it comes to non-doctrinal issues, (like, oh, say, the appropriateness of a goatee or the evils of a deck of playing cards), I can even agree.  However, once there's a doctrinal or spiritual or ethical or discipleship issue, the notion falls flat. From what I can tell, our leaders are very up to date on modern technology and popular cultural swings, and are often even ahead of the curve.  I actually learned about Snapchat from listening to Elder Ballard.  Americans started getting worried about the infringement of religious liberties a few years ago - our leaders were worrying over a decade ago.  We learned/grew/changed policies from our "abused by a boy-scout leader" scandals in the '70's and '80's - a good decade before the Catholics did.  

Not to mention that one of the early anti-mormon talking points against us was "Joe Smith wants to incite your blacks to riot by teaching them they are also God's children."

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Having tried funeral potatoes once, if you are here for the food then I feel truly sorry for you. 

Funeral potatoes are like communism: a great idea that just hasn’t been done correctly yet.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Having tried funeral potatoes once, if you are here for the food then I feel truly sorry for you. 

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Funeral potatoes are like communism: a great idea that just hasn’t been done correctly yet.  

Now I KNOW you're not in tune with the spirit.

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Prophets, schmophets.  I’m just here for the food.

Come back at 7pm - we don't serve before then.

[Tyme]

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I can see why folks think this.  When it comes to non-doctrinal issues, (like, oh, say, the appropriateness of a goatee or the evils of a deck of playing cards), I can even agree.  However, once there's a doctrinal or spiritual or ethical or discipleship issue, the notion falls flat. From what I can tell, our leaders are very up to date on modern technology and popular cultural swings, and are often even ahead of the curve.  I actually learned about Snapchat from listening to Elder Ballard.  Americans started getting worried about the infringement of religious liberties a few years ago - our leaders were worrying over a decade ago.  We learned/grew/changed policies from our "abused by a boy-scout leader" scandals in the '70's and '80's - a good decade before the Catholics did.  

Not to mention that one of the early anti-mormon talking points against us was "Joe Smith wants to incite your blacks to riot by teaching them they are also God's children."

 

What liberties are being infringed?

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Tyme said:

What liberties are being infringed?

Liberty to teach doctrine.  There is a political movement to make it "Hate Speech" under the Civil Rights Act to teach that homosexuality is a sin.

[Tyme]

Do they mean in church or school? If they mean in church it will get shot down by the courts.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Do they mean in church or school? If they mean in church it will get shot down by the courts.

You put a surprising amount of faith in the court system. Methinks you wouldn't be so cavalier about this if it were concerning an issue you cared about.

[Tyme]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

You put a surprising amount of faith in the court system. Methinks you wouldn't be so cavalier about this if it were concerning an issue you cared about.

Not everybody is like you Vort.

[NeuroTypical]

Random of-the-top-of-my-head short list of religious liberty infringing (both stuff that has happened, and stuff we're worried will start happening more and more)

- The continuing pressure to remove tax-exempt status from churches.
- Government forcing individuals/businesses to violate their religious beliefs (Masterpiece Cake Shop)
- Nondiscrimination legislation pressuring/forcing religious change (temples must perform SSA sealings, or violate this or that law)
- Forcing religion/religious viewpoints out of the public square. ("Separation of church and state" means we shouldn't elect people who believe in scripture, because they're taking orders from an imaginary sky fairy instead of their constituents, etc)

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Random of-the-top-of-my-head short list of religious liberty infringing (both stuff that has happened, and stuff we're worried will start happening more and more)

- The continuing pressure to remove tax-exempt status from churches.
- Government forcing individuals/businesses to violate their religious beliefs (Masterpiece Cake Shop)
- Nondiscrimination legislation pressuring/forcing religious change (temples must perform SSA sealings, or violate this or that law)
- Forcing religion/religious viewpoints out of the public square. ("Separation of church and state" means we shouldn't elect people who believe in scripture, because they're taking orders from an imaginary sky fairy instead of their constituents, etc)

I don't see any which have not had at least one example which has been through to court and the religious side has lost.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Not everybody is like you Vort.

 @Vort is a great guy and you could actually learn a ton if you listen to him. 

[Tyme]

The problem isn't that Vort isn't a nice guy or disciple of Christ. A big problem i'm seeing on this thread is that people make assumptions that aren't accurate.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Not everybody is like you Vort.

And the world is a better, more beautiful place for it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.