What LGBTQ+ hath wrot

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But it is how it begins...  Criticizing some poor slub who is doing the best they can.  But they did not come to the answer you would have gotten so we think it is ok to turn on them and question their motives and faithfulness.

My point was that the original criticism was directed toward the decision, not toward the deciders. That was brought out only by wrongful claims of not supporting one's leaders. Shaming the leaders who made this decision has never been the point.

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When we come upon something we disagree with in the Church we should First have faith that the Lord is in charge and is working with everyone in their weaknesses.  If that is not enough then we should engage in the method the Lord has given us to report issues.  Prayer and personal discussions with those that have relevant stewardship. 

If one needs to correct someones false understanding of the implications of the actions of church leaders...  One should always go back to the scriptures and words of the prophets.  Rather then question the faithfulness of leader that made the action.  That is a judgement to be made by those with the stewardship to do so

I am not convinced you are right, but I also am not convinced you are wrong. I continue to maintain that voicing concern over such a decision is not apostasy nor the road to apostasy, while simultaneously granting that I could be wrong.

[Nissan]

This is a war, it's an ideological war inside the church being fought. Those who are for homosexuality currently have the advantage because they are willing to be forceful in the positions and relentless in their pursuit.

Those who oppose them, simply say, we should follow the leadership. Which means they don't fight back against the ideology. They don't present arguments not theology nor anything which pushes back. It's an asymmetrical war.

Maybe they don't push back, because in the back of their minds they wonder if things really could change and no one wants to look stupid when the tide changes.

So those who advocate for homosexual use tactics the opposing side refuses to use. So in the battle of wills, those who advocate for homosexual are winning. They gain a larger and larger percentage of converts to their ideology.

And the only thing those who oppose do is say follow the leader. It's a losing strategy for the hearts and minds and souls of men.

[Nissan]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Then repent and follow the right way that God has given us to handle issues in the church

Which is how precisely?

You say this but you don't see the real world problems.

I have children about to be teenagers. Should I just shut up and say follow the leader when a homosexuals are prancing around there temple visitors center?

At what point does follow the leader, lead my children's soul down to hell because the bought into their false ideology?

This isn't theoretical it's happening now.

[Nissan]

It's all fun and games about being a "right" way until as a parent you think my God, my children......

[Nissan]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Not yet... But it is how it begins...  Criticizing some poor slub who is doing the best they can.   

Then the poor slub doesn't need or should be in a position of authority.

I expect my leadership to be competent  if whoever made this decision doesn't have the foresight or ability to understand the problems they cause by making this type of a decision,  then they shouldn't be in that position to begin with!

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

My point was that the original criticism was directed toward the decision, not toward the deciders. That was brought out only by wrongful claims of not supporting one's leaders. Shaming the leaders who made this decision has never been the point.

I am not convinced you are right, but I also am not convinced you are wrong. I continue to maintain that voicing concern over such a decision is not apostasy nor the road to apostasy, while simultaneously granting that I could be wrong.

Fair enough...  One question then...  I have seen you come out in full vocal support of some random bishop, that whatever decision they might have had to make that a poster was in disagreement with needed to be given every benefit of the doubt that he was trying to do the will of God.  Even if you did not 'get' such a decision.  Why does a Bishop get such latitude while and "Event Coordinator" (or whatever they are/were) does not?  Are they not both called?  Are they not both entitled to revelation for their stewardship?  Are they not both capable of Human Error?   Why is is acceptable to question this leaders action/decision... but not other leaders action?  Is not God leading all of us? 

(hmm appears I lied about just one question...  more things to repent of)

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, Nissan said:

Which is how precisely?

You say this but you don't see the real world problems.

I have children about to be teenagers. Should I just shut up and say follow the leader when a homosexuals are prancing around there temple visitors center?

At what point does follow the leader, lead my children's soul down to hell because the bought into their false ideology?

This isn't theoretical it's happening now.

Really I don't see it?  I have 4 kids in the teenage years... Asking me about homosexuals and trying to discover themselves... 

I am living in the very danger zone you are trying to use to justify your actions.  I am living in what is happening now. (It is very prideful  and misinformed of you to say I am not)

And that is all the more reason to have Faith in and Follow the Lord with everything I have.

[Nissan]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Fair enough...  One question then...  I have seen you come out in full vocal support of some random bishop, that whatever decision they might have had to make that a poster was in disagreement with needed to be given every benefit of the doubt that he was trying to do the will of God.  Even if you did not 'get' such a decision.  Why does a Bishop get such latitude while and "Event Coordinator" (or whatever they are/were) does not?  Are they not both called?  Are they not both entitled to revelation for their stewardship?  Are they not both capable of Human Error?   Why is is acceptable to question this leaders action/decision... but not other leaders action?  Is not God leading all of us? 

(hmm appears I lied about just one question...  more things to repent of)

You shouldn't be making these type of rookie errors if you are at that level. A blind man could see making this call would have many people at the very least scratching the head and at the most ticked off.

Yes everyone makes mistakes but at some level it's called incompetent.

[Nissan]

Just now, estradling75 said:

Really I don't see it?  I have 4 kids in the teenage years... Asking me about homosexuals and trying to discover themselves... 

I am living in the very danger zone you are trying to use to justify your actions.  I am living in what is happening now. (It is very prideful  and misinformed of you to say I am not)

And that is all the more reason to have Faith in and Follow the Lord with everything I have.

And it's very dangerous of you to assume that I think you weren't in this situation.

Which doesn't answer my question. How should one do what you suggest?

[Nissan]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Really I don't see it?  I have 4 kids in the teenage years... Asking me about homosexuals and trying to discover themselves... 

I am living in the very danger zone you are trying to use to justify your actions.  I am living in what is happening now. (It is very prideful  and misinformed of you to say I am not)

And that is all the more reason to have Faith in and Follow the Lord with everything I have.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough maybe you are blind to it... But when I'm told the number one issues in my stake in the youth is LGBTQ issues...not porn but sexual identity issues.

It's only a matter of time until it knocks on your front door. And no kid needs to be confronted with this crap at 12-13-14. They should worry more about their grades or playing baseball not this crap.

That's why I homeschool. Yet or doesn't do me any good to homeschool just to have my kids be confronted with this utter filth in church, which should be a refuge. Except it's becoming hostile.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nissan

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Nissan said:

You shouldn't be making these type of rookie errors if you are at that level. A blind man could see making this call would have many people at the very least scratching the head and at the most ticked off.

Yes everyone makes mistakes but at some level it's called incompetent.

What makes you think it was a mistake?  Your pride and assumptions.   After all by your own words at that level they should not be making mistakes.  The Lord has a history of commanding is followers to do hard things.  The Lord has a history of testing his people.  The Lord has a history of seeing who will obey in "all things" not just the things they agree with.

[Nissan]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

What makes you think it was a mistake?  Your pride and assumptions.   After all by your own words at that level they should not be making mistakes.  The Lord has a history of commanding is followers to do hard things.  The Lord has a history of testing his people.  The Lord has a history of seeing who will obey in "all things" not just the things they agree with.

Now you go twisting my words again. I'm not going to carry on a conversation with someone who does that. You are being disengenious. You have called me prideful and making assumptions. You should look in the mirror.

Good day.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nissan

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Nissan said:

And it's very dangerous of you to assume that I think you weren't in this situation.

I did not assume it... you said it

 

21 minutes ago, Nissan said:

You say this but you don't see the real world problems.

Unless you think I can be aware that I am in this situation but see not see it...    You made the claim I did not see it right here.  That was your assumption not mine.

I have exactly the same worry's and concerns that any faithful parent does who is trying to raise kids in this day and age.

[Nissan]

It's fascinating to me. One cannot stand for truth in the Church these days without being called prideful arrogant self righteous or any other number of names.

[Nissan]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I did not assume it... you said it

 

Unless you think I can be aware that I am in this situation but see not see it...    You made the claim I did not see it right here.  That was your assumption not mine.

I have exactly the same worry's and concerns that any faithful parent does who is trying to raise kids in this day and age.

I have nothing further to say to you. You called me prideful and made assumptions about my character. Good day.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Why does a Bishop get such latitude while and "Event Coordinator" (or whatever they are/were) does not? 

I suppose it's because (1) the decision is so obviously an outlier, (2) the decision can have an immediate and negative effect, and (3) the decision is widely known and publicized. If even one of these three conditions weren't present, I would think long and hard before publicly voicing any misgivings. But this simply seems beyond the pale to me.

[Grunt]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suppose it's because (1) the decision is so obviously an outlier, (2) the decision can have an immediate and negative effect, and (3) the decision is widely known and publicized. If even one of these three conditions weren't present, I would think long and hard before publicly voicing any misgivings. But this simply seems beyond the pale to me.

More so because it is KNOWN that we have activists among our members.  We have people who are actively trying to subvert doctrine.

Someone else mentioned public perception, too.  I see that as a problem, but probably not as large as others do.  What I find to be a larger problem that compounds that is members who aren't active being confused for those that are.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by Grunt

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I tend to agree with Vort that just because B is worse it does not mean that A is ok...  He also mention becoming a conservative Joanna Brooks. Which was exactly the direction I was leading.  If the only difference between us and the bloggernacle is the issues on which we feel it ok to attack the church on we are no better.  Either we stand for principle that there are right and wrong ways to handle issues with have the actions the church leaders might do.. or we are hypocrites.  (Seriously this thread for me for me exactly the same as we have had on people from the bloggernacle it was the same arguments only different people using them)

As for those that get wrong idea about the church.  That is clearly a cause for concern, but our tactics should not be to try to degrade the leadership of the church.   

It’s dangerous to over-generalize, obviously; but generally when bloggernacle’s slimy denizens criticize bishops, it’s not because the bishop is actively or tacitly encouraging people to engage in conduct the Church itself condemns as sinful—or because the bishop is suggesting that the Church is about to approve of hitherto-sinful conduct.  To the contrary, that group usually reserves its most vicious attacks for the bishops who are the most devoted to the Church and its teachings.

General and local priesthood leaders obviously deserve significant deference from those within their stewardship.  But thoughtful “TBMs” have never considered that deference to be unlimited.  To suggest otherwise is to play into the caricatures of us that the DAMU, NOMO-types have constructed.  We don’t do blind obedience; we are not sheeple; we do not stand ready to perpetrate another Mountain Meadows the moment someone with a calling asks us to.  We respect the office and defer to the authority within certain (admittedly very broad) parameters, but our allegiance is to God and His law; and our most important communion is with His Spirit.  Furthermore, the presidency of a temple in whose district I do not reside has zero stewardship over me and merits no more deference from me than the deference I’d give to the pre-excommunication versions of Kate Kelley, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, or any other beloved-but-errant brother or sister in Christ.

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Nissan]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s dangerous to over-generalize, obviously; but generally when bloggernacle’s slimy denizens criticize bishops, it’s not because the bishop is actively or tacitly encouraging people to engage in conduct the Church itself condemns as sinful—or because the bishop is suggesting that the Church is about to approve of hitherto-sinful conduct.  To the contrary, that group usually reserves its most vicious attacks for the bishops who are the most devoted to the Church and its teachings.

General and local priesthood leaders obviously deserve significant deference from those within their stewardship.  But thoughtful “TBMs” have never considered that deference to be unlimited (to suggest otherwise is to play into the caricatures of us that the DAMU, NOMO-types have constructed); and the presidency of a temple in whose district I do not reside merits no more deference from me than the deference I’d give to the pre-excommunication versions of Kate Kelley, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, or any other beloved-but-errant brother or sister in Christ.

 

The question is though what happens when it is your temple district, when it is your Bishop, when it is your stake president?

Then what do you do? It would be advisable to start planning now what actions or non actions you will take so when it comes you are prepared.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nissan

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, Nissan said:

The question is though what happens when it is your temple district, when it is your Bishop, when it is your stake president?

Then what do you do? It would be advisable to start planning now what actions or non actions you will take so when it comes you are prepared.

Thankfully:  at the moment, not my circus; not my monkeys.  

[Nissan]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Thankfully:  at the moment, not my circus; not my monkeys.  

Not yet, but when the wind is blowing and the sky is dark with clouds and there is thunder and lightening in the distance, it might be a good idea to grab a raincoat and make sure your lightening rod is securly attached to the house and the storm shelter ready to go.

Pray to God the storm doesn't hit but be ready if it does.

[JohnsonJones]

Just a point...

Who actually lives in the Temple District this is occurring in?

If you do not, these are not even in your local leadership, they are not in your chain of command, you did NOT sustain them as one of your local leaders that I can recall.

What is this all about sustaining your leaders if the leaders are nowhere close to being YOUR actual leaders?

I may have been a local leader until recently, but that does NOT mean that I expected everyone from ever other ward and stake to sustain me.

Even without that, the DIFFERENCE between us and a few other religions is that we do NOT HOLD that our leaders are infallible.  Much as many pretend that our leaders can never err, we DO NOT BELIEVE THIS.  IT IS NOT DOCTRINE.  IT IS NOT EVEN POLICY.

I am under no obligation to send tithes, fast offerings, or any other items to another ward or stake.  I am under no obligation to clean the buildings in another nation.  I am under no obligation to go clean the Temple in another Temple District.  These people are NOT in my CHAIN of church leadership. 

That does not mean I should tear them down on purpose, but it also does not mean that I remain silent when something does not match expectations. 

46 minutes ago, Nissan said:

The question is though what happens when it is your temple district, when it is your Bishop, when it is your stake president?

Then what do you do? It would be advisable to start planning now what actions or non actions you will take so when it comes you are prepared.

It depends on what those actions ARE.

In a situations as put in this thread, I would probably go to talk to the Temple President.  I have never had a discussion over a disagreement with a Temple President, but I have had discussions with Temple Presidents in the Past.  I have never been denied such a visit unless the Temple President is not there.  In the case where the Temple President is not there, a counselor has always offered to talk to me instead.  Once in his office I would express my concerns over what is happening.  I expect in the case of a disagreement the Temple President would explain his point of view.  In some cases, the regulation of the Temple grounds falls under the Temple President but he is not directly controlling every detail and in some cases such as events, is not even aware (even if it was discussed in a meeting at some point prior to that) of what is occurring in the Visitor's center until the calendar comes up for that particular month.  It is up to the Scheduler who are normally (well, in many cases to ones I've been at more recently) either a Senior Missionary couple, or an Elderly couple called to that position specifically.

Once I know the Temple Presidents point of view, if for some reason I still disagree with it, AFTER my initial disagreement with Temple President (at which point I may have voiced an initial dismay, but should not make a big scene of it if it is with my local church authorities), I can write a letter or request up the chain.  In otherwords, you move it up the chain rather than making a loud or vocal protest.  It does not mean that you have to accept what they did, but you do not try to tear down your local leadership or make their volunteer/voluntold positions harder.  If you think it is a big enough deal and what they are doing is wrong enough, you simply move it up the chain of command in regards to your questions of right or wrong.

If it is not in your chain of command/leadership, I do not think mentioning questions or surprise over something like this occurring is out of line.  A similar situation would be, for example, a bunch of scouts that used a handsaw to cut down a tree in Washington State (I believe that is where it occurred).  They were not even supposed to cut down live branches, much less a tree.  The tree fell and killed an individual.  My response is that something went VERY wrong with that scouting trip.  Where were the leaders?  Something that was not right occurred.  This is not speaking badly about leaders, it is a response showing that I think something wrong went on with decisions and other facets of that groups operations at that time.  I can still sustain leaders while disagreeing with some actions some of them may have taken.  (adding for clarity, even if they are not in my local leadership, I do NOT intentionally try to tear down their position or make their life harder.  I try to still support them in their positions as far as I can when they act in righteousness, or under the auspices of higher authority.  If they are actually participating in crimes I can show my shock or unhappiness, but I still can show support for the leaders around them dealing with such things).

However, you are to try to help them in their positions rather than hinder them.  If you are actually HINDERING them in accomplishing their positions and responsibilities, that is the opposite of sustaining.  If you are trying to help them with their positions, and help them accomplish what they feel is right, then you are sustaining them, even if you may not fully agree with all that they are doing.

IN MY OPINION (just to be clear about the above).

Edited November 2, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Nissan]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just a point...

Who actually lives in the Temple District this is occurring in?

If you do not, these are not even in your local leadership, they are not in your chain of command, you did NOT sustain them as one of your local leaders that I can recall.

What is this all about sustaining your leaders if the leaders are nowhere close to being YOUR actual leaders?

I may have been a local leader until recently, but that does NOT mean that I expected everyone from ever other ward and stake to sustain me.

Even without that, the DIFFERENCE between us and a few other religions is that we do NOT HOLD that our leaders are infallible.  Much as many pretend that our leaders can never err, we DO NOT BELIEVE THIS.  IT IS NOT DOCTRINE.  IT IS NOT EVEN POLICY.

I am under no obligation to send tithes, fast offerings, or any other items to another ward or stake.  I am under no obligation to clean the buildings in another nation.  I am under no obligation to go clean the Temple in another Temple District.  These people are NOT in my CHAIN of church leadership. 

That does not mean I should tear them down on purpose, but it also does not mean that I remain silent when something does not match expectations. 

It depends on what those actions ARE.

In a situations as put in this thread, I would probably go to talk to the Temple President.  I have never had a discussion over a disagreement with a Temple President, but I have had discussions with Temple Presidents in the Past.  I have never been denied such a visit unless the Temple President is not there.  In the case where the Temple President is not there, a counselor has always offered to talk to me instead.  Once in his office I would express my concerns over what is happening.  I expect in the case of a disagreement the Temple President would explain his point of view.  In some cases, the regulation of the Temple grounds falls under the Temple President but he is not directly controlling every detail and in some cases such as events, is not even aware (even if it was discussed in a meeting at some point prior to that) of what is occurring in the Visitor's center until the calendar comes up for that particular month.  It is up to the Scheduler who are normally (well, in many cases to ones I've been at more recently) either a Senior Missionary couple, or an Elderly couple called to that position specifically.

Once I know the Temple Presidents point of view, if for some reason I still disagree with it, AFTER my initial disagreement with Temple President (at which point I may have voiced an initial dismay, but should not make a big scene of it if it is with my local church authorities), I can write a letter or request up the chain.  In otherwords, you move it up the chain rather than making a loud or vocal protest.  It does not mean that you have to accept what they did, but you do not try to tear down your local leadership or make their volunteer/voluntold positions harder.  If you think it is a big enough deal and what they are doing is wrong enough, you simply move it up the chain of command in regards to your questions of right or wrong.

If it is not in your chain of command/leadership, I do not think mentioning questions or surprise over something like this occurring is out of line.  A similar situation would be, for example, a bunch of scouts that used a handsaw to cut down a tree in Washington State (I believe that is where it occurred).  They were not even supposed to cut down live branches, much less a tree.  The tree fell and killed an individual.  My response is that something went VERY wrong with that scouting trip.  Where were the leaders?  Something that was not right occurred.  This is not speaking badly about leaders, it is a response showing that I think something wrong went on with decisions and other facets of that groups operations at that time.  I can still sustain leaders while disagreeing with some actions some of them may have taken.

However, you are to try to help them in their positions rather than hinder them.  If you are actually HINDERING them in accomplishing their positions and responsibilities, that is the opposite of sustaining.  If you are trying to help them with their positions, and help them accomplish what they feel is right, then you are sustaining them, even if you may not fully agree with all that they are doing.

IN MY OPINION (just to be clear about the above).

I once lived there. The DC temple is a major temple. It is the flagship temple out east. 

So it is one step below this happening at say Temple Square. It affects more than just the temple district.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Nissan said:

I once lived there. The DC temple is a major temple. It is the flagship temple out east. 

So it is one step below this happening at say Temple Square. It affects more than just the temple district.

I know it is a major Temple out east.  When I was younger we would make a long trip to go to the temple in Washinton DC. 

Once again, if I was in that Temple area and disagreed with what was happening there, I would first try to make an appointment to talk to the Temple President.  If it is important enough to make a big enough fuss, then it is big enough for someone in that Temple area to make the effort to at least talk to the Leadership first about it.

If one is concerned after that (whether in the Temple area or not) then write to the leadership above that and voice one's concern.  We can share our initial observations and thoughts on the matter here, but I think that asking about it to someone who can actually be involved with the decisions is probably more fruitful in either finding out the reasons for it or making a change than making a big scene otherwise.

I will note, talking about it in such a small forum as this one on such a subject, at least thus far in what we've covered, I do not feel is deviating from what is right or that we are doing anything wrong.  If we push it further than that we may enter territory that is inappropriate.

If one actually LIVES in that Temple area though, they probably should refrain from saying anything that may be construed as belittling or tearing down their local leadership, at least until more is known on the reasons for the choir singing there.  They have a hands up on the rest of the forum if it is their local temple area in that they can actually go and request an audience with the Temple Presidency to ask directly and request answers on the why's and hows of the event.  Once they know, if they still disagree, they probably should still not make a huge scene of it as it is their local authorities.  Instead, they should endeavor for a better understanding OR to make a change with Higher Church authorities on the matter.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

, I would first try to make an appointment to talk to the Temple President.

They probably don't have time to meet with the average LDS who just has a bone to pick with the choices they have made. Not an insult, but these guys are busy and would probably correctly tell you to speak to a bishop about it. 

You are up 3-0 against us my friend. Are you watching the game?