The next logical step


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I know it was a description of Joseph Smith by himself and it's origin, but I've never read the book.

Yes.  The book was taken from Joseph's description of himself.  He was pointing out that he, himself, was just a man like any other.  But (much like C.S. Lewis's description of the sculptor chiseling away at the marble with his mighty hammer) the Lord was chipping away at Joseph with the many trials he was being put through in his life because he was the Lord's prophet, declaring His word to the people.  That has nothing to do with a new doctrine being taught to the membership of the Church.

We could believe that Tyme was really trying to say "The Stone cut out of the mountain without hands."  But he didn't

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grunt said:

It's why I spend less time on the forum these days.  I've cut a lot of things from my life that don't uplift me spiritually.

I don't blame you.  For what it's worth, though, I think you brightened everyone's day with your news about your sons.  It really lifted me up.

Thanks for sharing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't blame you.  For what it's worth, though, I think you brightened everyone's day with your news about your sons.  It really lifted me up.

Thanks for sharing that.

I got them their own quads as a present.  We read as a family every night before bed (round robin, everyone reads a verse for a page a night).  It was great watching them proudly carrying their "big kid Scriptures" into the room for the evening read.  They act so grown up sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What caricatures have we painted on this forum?  Give an example.

I've seen a lot of specific examples taken from real-life examples.  That isn't a caricature.  That's an example.  So, what caricatures are you talking about.

Thanks @Carborendum

Nobody on this forum, actually.  And i really appreciate you pointing that out.  The caricatures go both ways (with many Christians being caricatured as bigots - something i find very untrue generally).  It's best for everyone if we call all of the caricatures out as the absurdly inaccurate things that they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Ouch is all I can say after having spent a little time in this thread.  I’m leaving it now and invite others to do the same.  I can’t imagine anyone feels edified or uplifted by the disdain voiced by commenters towards other commenters and then often returned in kind.

I most certainly don't like disputations, contention, etc.  However, this topic is an important topic, it is an important issue, not talking about it will not help resolve questions or doubts or problems people have.

I think Tyme has some very key points that he is making.  I think it is in the dialog that people can really find out if what they believe is really true or if their beliefs need modification.  I have tried to engage Tyme on a much deeper level than merely a superficial level. I've tried to ask deep meaningful questions related to the why, the hows, the very deep core of why he believes the way he does.  Why does he believe his opinion is the right opinion, why he believes he is being lead by the spirit and I am not being led by the spirit.

I am most certainly open to the possibility that I am deceived-I have been before so it wouldn't be the first time-yet I have not been able to engage him on a deeper level to really get to the heart of why his position is from God . . .except for that he just feels it deep in his heart.

In my opinion, feeling it deep in your heart is absolutely no basis for a fundamental religious principle. Religion is a way of looking at life, it is an overarching framework through which we are able to interpret, view and interact with the world. 

So far, the only thing I can get from him is that the fundamental basis of religion should be that it needs to be something I feel deep, deep in my heart.  I've had plenty of experiences in my life where I've felt something deep, deep, deep in my heart and that feeling turned out to be wrong. In fact not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong-so far wrong it made my head spin.

So if you are going to explain a religion principle to me, such as homosexuality is morally good, then it needs to have some other theological backing to it besides . . .I just feel it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Carborendum

Nobody on this forum, actually.  And i really appreciate you pointing that out.  The caricatures go both ways (with many Christians being caricatured as bigots - something i find very untrue generally).  It's best for everyone if we call all of the caricatures out as the absurdly inaccurate things that they are.

Thanks.  I hope you didn't take that as an accusation or challenge.  I agree that painting such caricatures is an unethical method of carrying on discourse for those trying to have civil discourse.  So, if we were guilty of it, I'd really like to know so (if it were my fault) I could apologize.  And if it were someone else, we might have to issue correction or something.

I'm happy to hear we have not.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I hope you didn't take that as an accusation or challenge.

Not at all.  Mostly because i think you are a very kind and compassionate person who doesn't call things out without good reasons.  

But also because i've found it generally good for my health when i go out of my way to avoid challenges with anyone whose profile picture is a multi-ton boulder rolling down a mountain and crushing everything in it's path....jk :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, boxer said:

I agree with the second paragraph.  The pew research makes it clear that when it says "accepted by society' it means "sinful".

Dig into the data and you find some very interesting conclusions, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/mormon/views-about-homosexuality/

such as 47% of Mormons who believe homosexuality should be accepted believe abortion should be legal in all/most cases.  Only 16% of those who believe homosexuality should not be accepted believe that.

Or how about 60%!!! of Mormons who believe homosexuality should be accepted believe right or wrong depends on the situation . . . 60%! Only 30% believe that way for those who do not believe homosexuality should be accepted.

Only 49% of those who believe homosexuality is okay look to religion for guidance on right/wrong.  Contrast that to 73% of those who believe it is wrong that look to religion to guide right/wrong. Those who accept homosexuality pray less, study scripture less, attend church less, and religion is less important by at least fully 20% than those who do not accept.

Contrary to what Tyme suggests about more spirituality. The hard data indicates that acceptance of homosexuality leads to less spirituality, less religion, and more Godlessness.

Two words:

Public schools.

Those weirdos who homeschooled their weirdo children in the early 2000s may well be harbingers of a much more common practice a generation later. One of my daughters-in-law is a public school teacher, and after less than 18 months of marriage, she is starting to consider the advantages of homeschooling.

My children were and are much too precious to leave to the public schools. As the years pass, more people will adopt that philosophy. Contrary to the nightmarish vision that Tyme advocates, I think the Church in a generation will be populated by people who, with their brethren and sisters in Zion, forge their own destiny and that of their children, rejecting the evils of the world and drawing close to Christ. Maybe there will still be an old Vort around to thank God for the good Saints of the stakes of Zion. If that's the case, I pray I'll be rejoicing in my children's activity in and protection by Zion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Two words:

Public schools.

Those weirdos who homeschooled their weirdo children in the early 2000s may well be harbingers of a much more common practice a generation later. One of my daughters-in-law is a public school teacher, and after less than 18 months of marriage, she is starting to consider the advantages of homeschooling.

My children were and are much too precious to leave to the public schools. As the years pass, more people will adopt that philosophy.

Very good points.

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Contrary to the nightmarish vision that Tyme advocates, I think the Church in a generation will be populated by people who, with their brethren and sisters in Zion, forge their own destiny and that of their children, rejecting the evils of the world and drawing close to Christ. Maybe there will still be an old Vort around to thank God for the good Saints of the stakes of Zion. If that's the case, I pray I'll be rejoicing in my children's activity in and protection by Zion.

I pray that is the case. It will require a people who are alert, attentive to the scriptures and to the True Spirit of God and who are not deceived by false spirits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

30 years?  I think you give us too much credit.  The last statistic I heard (and it was an unofficial comment) was from a teacher who gave it about 12 years.

Frankly, I'm not seeing much of a lag at all nowadays.  The only exceptions are sexual promiscuity and Word of Wisdom.  Today, I get the impression that people just expect to have sex on the first date.  The population of the Church sure isn't accepting that.  And for the most part, I don't think the populous of the Church is abandoning the Word of Wisdom any time soon.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes 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.

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Man runs the Church.  He doesn't.  It's Christ's Church and Heavenly Father has spoken.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

All the stuff you're talking about are "policy" decisions about applying the commandments.  They are not doctrinal issues.  They never were.

Quote

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?

Joseph Smith said that we should always go with the majority of the 12.  They will never lead us astray.  So, we've been given a promise that "The Church" will no longer be allowed to go into apostasy.  But the membership might.  And I believe that the social forces of evil will force the separation of the wheats and tares more than any Church policy or doctrinal statements ever will.

We are not the sectarians who change their doctrines based on the study and whims of man.  We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He will remove apostles who seek to lead us astray.  We believe in continuing revelation through the oracles of God.  It is HE who leads this church, not man.  And if we ever lose faith and believe that the apostles are actually working to destroy the work of the Lord, then may God help us all, because that will mean that we no longer have any revelation on earth.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain to me how it is not glaringly obvious that having sex with someone of your own sex is contrary to 100% of the gospel and teachings of God?

There is not one thing with which it is compatible.  Not one thing that it doesn't flagrantly deny.  The creation of male and female.  Marriage between a man and a woman.  Fatherhood and motherhood.  The family as the central unit of eternity.  God as our father and the (albeit not expounded upon) teaching of a heavenly mother.  The command to multiply and replenish the earth.  The eternal nature of gender.  The truthfulness of scripture.  The unchanging nature of God.  The Atoning power of Jesus Christ.  The Law of Chastity.

We could expand from all that into everything, because at the center of it all is the idea that exaltation consists of a perfected man and a perfected woman, eternally sealed as husband and wife, being parents of offspring which they together created and which can be created in no other way.  That this exaltation is God's life and way of life, that it is the purpose of our very existence, that the gospel of Jesus Christ exists to exalt us in this way.  Take away the center and everything falls apart - all of it.  It simply collapses.  Nothing has any meaning or purpose without that central idea.

This is no pop culture trend that the membership of the Church are lagging behind.  This is no policy.  It is no temporary restriction.  This is the foundation of all.  To remove the foundation is to drop everything into a bottomless abyss of nothingness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Can someone please explain to me how it is not glaringly obvious that having sex with someone of your own sex is contrary to 100% of the gospel and teachings of God?

There is not one thing with which it is compatible.  Not one thing that it doesn't flagrantly deny.  The creation of male and female.  Marriage between a man and a woman.  Fatherhood and motherhood.  The family as the central unit of eternity.  God as our father and the (albeit not expounded upon) teaching of a heavenly mother.  The command to multiply and replenish the earth.  The eternal nature of gender.  The truthfulness of scripture.  The unchanging nature of God.  The Atoning power of Jesus Christ.  The Law of Chastity.

We could expand from all that into everything, because at the center of it all is the idea that exaltation consists of a perfected man and a perfected woman, eternally sealed as husband and wife, being parents of offspring which they together created and which can be created in no other way.  That this exaltation is God's life and way of life, that it is the purpose of our very existence, that the gospel of Jesus Christ exists to exalt us in this way.  Take away the center and everything falls apart - all of it.  It simply collapses.  Nothing has any meaning or purpose without that central idea.

This is no pop culture trend that the membership of the Church are lagging behind.  This is no policy.  It is no temporary restriction.  This is the foundation of all.  To remove the foundation is to drop everything into a bottomless abyss of nothingness.

Well, that's just because you're not in tune with the Spirit, you ignorant hater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, that's just because you're not in tune with the Spirit, you ignorant hater.

Right.  I think I'll just start going to and fro, walking up and down in the earth, now, since that's what us evil people do.  I'm gonna need new shoes.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tyme said:

The problem is that most of you are viewing this as a zero sum game. I would cheer for joy if gays were allowed in the Temple. The reason wouldn't be because I want to win some silly forum argument. Thinking like that just further entrenches people. The LGBT issue is very deep, personal and if I say so spiritual. That's why it is so difficult to change a person's mind despite the facts of the situation.

I never claimed the youth have the spirit more than anybody else. Are you getting at that older generations have the spirit more? It really is a case-by-case situation and not really knowable.

I'm listening to the spirit of God. You shall know by how good the works are. Having gays in the Temple is a good work and spiritually clean.

Gays CAN enter the temple.  The requirements for temple attendance is the same for everybody - AVOID SIN. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, zil said:

Right.  I think I just start going to and fro, walking up and down in the earth, now, since that's what us evil people do.  I'm gonna need new shoes.

Well, that's why I posted that video of Dom Irrera's "I don't mean that in a BAD way..."  (back on page 6)... shameless plug for more likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share