Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Godless said:

We've had a purge or two here over the years. Somehow they've let me keep posting here though.

We need a brewer or two around here to keep @mirkwood well-supplied.

”For medicinal purposes only”, naturally . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 3:07 PM, Traveler said:

Not according to the Prophet David O McKay.  He said that it is a greater honor to be trusted than to be loved.  G-d loves all his children but he only trusts those that keep the commandments.

 

The Traveler

So you're saying - or you think David O. McKay is saying - that there's a possibility, even just a logical one, that God does not love those He trusts.  You're a funny man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what will happen concerning homosexuality when Christ returns.

I will predict two things.   #1.There will be no homosexual marriages, or any homosexual acts or public acceptance of homosexuality. 

#2 There will not be anyone that rejects homosexual individuals and wishes them harm or any degree of retribution, punishment or unkindness.  

Perhaps I would add one other thought - I do not believe there will be political actuations or differences - but that those that receive Christ will be of one mind and heart.   I am not sure who will be ready (especially me) but if I get a chance - my plan is to beg and plead for forgiveness.

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 2:50 PM, Scott said:

As much as I admit that condemning heterosexual immorality as being good.

I don't know whether you condemn heterosexual immorality either.

 

On 4/12/2019 at 2:50 PM, Scott said:

Do you believe that heterosexual immorality is at least as serious as homosexual activity? 

Not in the eternal scheme of things.  Sin - in any form, including taking cookies from the cookie jar - takes you farther from Christ.  You can get back to the path to get closer to Christ through repentance.  Heterosexual immorality - say, sex outside of marriage - has a repentance path to eternity that may not include breaking the relationship, but rather going through marriage, whether performed in mortality or in the after life.  Homosexual immorality has ZERO path to eternity without breaking that relationship - so that relationship at the onset holds no hope of bearing fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're saying - or you think David O. McKay is saying - that there's a possibility, even just a logical one, that God does not love those He trusts.  You're a funny man.

What are you saying and where did it come from.  I said it is a greater honor to be trusted than to be loved.  How do you conclude that such would mean that G-d or anyone for that matter do not love those they trust?  If I were to say it is greater to live the law of consecration than the law of tithing - or greater to live the law of Christ than to live the law of Moses - That in living a higher law one no longer is obedient to lower laws?   Did the Pharisees rightfully accuse Christ of not living the law of Moses?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What are you saying and where did it come from.  I said it is a greater honor to be trusted than to be loved.  How do you conclude that such would mean that G-d or anyone for that matter do not love those they trust?  If I were to say it is greater to live the law of consecration than the law of tithing - or greater to live the law of Christ than to live the law of Moses - That in living a higher law one no longer is obedient to lower laws?   Did the Pharisees rightfully accuse Christ of not living the law of Moses?

 

The Traveler

This is your post that you're trying to defend using David O McKay's statement:

 

On 4/12/2019 at 12:42 PM, Traveler said:

My opinion - to be trusted is greater than to be loved.  Trust is far more important in marriage than love.  I believe we can learn to love anyone that we can trust but we cannot say that we can learn to trust anyone we can love.

 

The Traveler

You believe that Trust is GREATEER than Love.  Not a greater HONOR but greater.  As if - Trust without Love is better than Love.  Neither David O McKay nor Jesus said that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

This is your post that you're trying to defend using David O McKay's statement:

 

You believe that Trust is GREATEER than Love.  Not a greater HONOR but greater.  As if - Trust without Love is better than Love.  Neither David O McKay nor Jesus said that.

 

 

I think you are taking what you highlighted out of context.  Note that I also said we can learn to love anyone that we can trust but I am not sure we can learn to trust anyone we love.  Is there anyone that you trust that you do not love? - an example would help me understand.  Also do you trust everyone that you love?  We are commanded to love everyone.  But who are we commanded to trust?  What honor is there in being loved by G-d?  Especially if G-d loves everybody (including his children that fell from grace in the pre-existence) - Is it not then a greater honor to be trusted?

It is greater for us to love - but it is greater for us to be trusted.  But since we cannot be trusted unless we love - which is greater?  It must be the one that includes all of the other.

 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think you are taking what you highlighted out of context.  Note that I also said we can learn to love anyone that we can trust but I am not sure we can learn to trust anyone we love.    

You said trust is GREATER than love.  I challenged that statement.  It's a very simple statement that would be difficult to take out of context.  Just because you can learn to love those you trust doesn't make trust GREATER than love.

 

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Is there anyone that you trust that you do not love? - an example would help me understand. 

I don't know why you don't understand your own statement.  You're the one that said someone can trust you who do not love you and so you'd rather be trusted than loved.

But since you ask me... My accountant.  There's no alternate universe that exists that I would marry my accountant. 

 

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Also do you trust everyone that you love?  We are commanded to love everyone.  But who are we commanded to trust?  What honor is there in being loved by G-d?  Especially if G-d loves everybody (including his children that fell from grace in the pre-existence) - Is it not then a greater honor to be trusted?

It is greater for us to love - but it is greater for us to be trusted.  But since we cannot be trusted unless we love - which is greater?  It must be the one that includes all of the other.

The Traveler

This is the difference between you and me:  I don't require that my husband trust me.  I don't even require that my husband love me.  It only matters that I love him and that he can trust me whether he realizes that or not.

I don't hold a Trusted-but-not-Loved person a greater honor than a Loved person.  Love is the goal.  Trust is the icing to that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Just a side note, @Traveler & @anatess2, I believe the quote is actually it is better to "respected" than to be loved.

What quote?  Who quoted it?

And no, it is not better to be respected than to be loved.  Imagine:  Respect God with all your heart mind and strength.  Respect others as you respect yourself.  No way near better by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And no, it is not better to be respected than to be loved.  Imagine:  Respect God with all your heart mind and strength.  Respect others as you respect yourself.  No way near better by a long shot.

It is better to be feared than to be loved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is better to be feared than to be loved.

-Machiavelli,"The Prince" (sort of)

His actual quote was more along the lines of it being better to have both, but if it must be one or the other, it is better to be feared.

Worth noting is a very convincing view that "The Prince" was meant to be satire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What quote?  Who quoted it?

And no, it is not better to be respected than to be loved.  Imagine:  Respect God with all your heart mind and strength.  Respect others as you respect yourself.  No way near better by a long shot.

Actually @Traveler is correct. It appears people who I have conversed with have quoted this wrong, or maybe it was a personal application from President David O. McKay. Marvin J. Ashton quotes President David O. McKay did indeed say the following as quoted by Marvin J. Ashton:

Quote

President David O. McKay frequently said: “It is better to be trusted than to be loved.” A good friend of mine learned the importance of this and the significance of being a person of integrity at a relatively young age in life. (Source)

As to arguing/debating this point with me is moot. This is one statement I don't find agreement with. If I don't love you I won't trust you. If I don't love you, I won't respect a person either. This was one statement I think is often abused by people.

So, to answer the question, Traveler quoted the quote. I had heard it was actually "respect" rather than "trust." So, I responded with the given comment. Come to find out, with a little research Traveler is correct. President David O. McKay said it is better to be trusted than to be loved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unixknight said:

-Machiavelli,"The Prince" (sort of)

His actual quote was more along the lines of it being better to have both, but if it must be one or the other, it is better to be feared.

Worth noting is a very convincing view that "The Prince" was meant to be satire.

Yeah, Machiavelli was badly mistreated by the Medici's and was supportive of that century's version of a republic. This is especially clear when you read his other writings. Unfortunately for him, his satire in the Prince was so well done that people took his writings seriously and that book became a blueprint for power hungry leaders for centuries. Kind of backfired on him.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unixknight said:
55 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Yeah, Machiavelli was badly mistreated by the Medici's and was supportive of that centuries version of republics. This is especially clear when you read his other writings. Unfortunately for him, his satire in the Prince was so well done that people took his writings seriously and that book became a blueprint for power hungry leaders for centuries. Kind of backfired on him.

Worth noting is a very convincing view that "The Prince" was meant to be satire.

You guys are exactly right. He wrote it tongue in cheek but it was so convincing that people took it seriously. Sort of like "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 3:11 PM, pam said:

 

 

19 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@wenglund, your check is in the mail.  :D 

 

15 hours ago, Godless said:

We've had a purge or two here over the years. Somehow they've let me keep posting here though.

@Godless your bill is in the mail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:
2 hours ago, unixknight said:
2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Yeah, Machiavelli was badly mistreated by the Medici's and was supportive of that centuries version of republics. This is especially clear when you read his other writings. Unfortunately for him, his satire in the Prince was so well done that people took his writings seriously and that book became a blueprint for power hungry leaders for centuries. Kind of backfired on him.

Worth noting is a very convincing view that "The Prince" was meant to be satire.

You guys are exactly right. He wrote it tongue in cheek but it was so convincing that people took it seriously. Sort of like "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift. 

I find the evidence that Macchiavelli was just kidding when he wrote Il Principe to be compelling but not convincing. The treatise reads as a straightforward exposé, and the advice given is chillingly, cold-bloodedly direct and honest. I could perhaps believe it was written exactly for this purpose, to expose the motivations and machinations of European princes (and politicians of all stripes). But satire? Nope. There is nothing satirical about the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We need a brewer or two around here to keep @mirkwood well-supplied.

”For medicinal purposes only”, naturally . . .

If we're talking about @mirkwood it really needs to be two brewers. One would not suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Vort said:

I find the evidence that Macchiavelli was just kidding when he wrote Il Principe to be compelling but not convincing. The treatise reads as a straightforward exposé, and the advice given is chillingly, cold-bloodedly direct and honest. I could perhaps believe it was written exactly for this purpose, to expose the motivations and machinations of European princes (and politicians of all stripes). But satire? Nope. There is nothing satirical about the work.

Maybe it's a bit of both.  Isn't that what satire is all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Maybe it's a bit of both.  Isn't that what satire is all about?

Here's the definition I'm using:

sat·ire 
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues

I see little humor or irony, and no exaggeration or ridicule, in Il Principe. On the contrary, it's straightforward and factual. Whatever it is, it does not look at all satirical to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vort said:

I see little humor or irony, and no exaggeration or ridicule, in Il Principe. On the contrary, it's straightforward and factual. Whatever it is, it does not look at all satirical to me.

Heh I dunno I kinda see a sort of dark humor to it that may have landed on the contemporary audience.  Hopefully there's a lot of exaggeration, though I suspect it's not as much as we'd like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What quote?  Who quoted it?

And no, it is not better to be respected than to be loved.  Imagine:  Respect God with all your heart mind and strength.  Respect others as you respect yourself.  No way near better by a long shot.

There are lots of different quotes, but if you are interested, here's talk from James E Faust where he is quoting David O McKay on the better to be trusted than to be loved idea:

Now, brethren, another element of freedom is trust. Almost 60 years ago, when I was going on my first mission, President McKay taught us missionaries a great truth. Without a word, he walked over to the blackboard, picked up a piece of chalk, and wrote, “It is better to be trusted than to be loved.” I have pondered that statement and have seen some fine examples of it. 

Here's the whole talk, with lots of context:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/obedience-the-path-to-freedom?lang=eng



 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now