What LGBTQ+ hath wrot


cat123
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Did you sustain the Leadership of the Church at the last General Conference?  Because that is when I gave my Consent to this action and all the others the Church might take in the next 6 months.

Which is more important saying a few words and raising a hand or what my heart desires?

Does it really matter if I sustained with my hand or not or is it a question with which you can then use as a weapon to discard anything I say?

How many people, how many members raise their hands yet their hearts are far from the teachings?

The prophets and apostles and scriptures have already spoken many times on this. Unlike many hypocritical members I sustain with all my heart the Doctrine of Christ and His Holy Word. I do not sustain false gods or fake ideologies regardless of who they come from.

But that is perfectly fine, continue to think that merely raising your hand and then preaching a false doctrine contrary to God's laws is better than a man who doesn't sustain because he's rather his heart align with his words.

Edited by Nissan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As Vort said, if the FP explicitly endorses this, then we’ll have to reconsider.

But in the interim, all we know is that some  nameless DC Temple events coordinator arranged the booking, and neither the Temple Presidency nor the First Presidency have publicly endorsed or condemned the act.  

I did not vote to sustain that events coordinator.  I did not even vote to sustain the DC Temple Presidency.  As for “stewardship”, a temple presidency’s stewardship is to administer the temple and the ordinances therein; not to undermine Church doctrine or create embarrassing situations for the First Presidency, or to make it publicly harder for me to sustain and defend the principles and people and institutions that I AM bound to sustain and defend.  If they don’t have to stay in their stewardship, then why on earth should I stay silent in the face of their actions that undermine my stewardship? 

Unless or until the FP explicitly weighs in, I have no more obligation to sustain the DC temple presidency in its errors, than I do to sustain that weaselly Joseph Bishop; or the pedophile Relief Society second counselor in the Hottentot Eleventy-First Ward.

How did the event coordinator get called and given stewardship?  Did they take it upon themselves?  Or did someone with authority call them?..  I think based on the process the Lord has laid out it is clear we have a chain or line of authority between the event coordinator and the First Presidency and through the first Presidency Christ himself.  That is how the event coordinator got called.  Either you can respect the Lord's process or you can murmur against it.

It is true you only at best indirectly sustained the event coordinator or the Relief Society second counselor in the Hottentot Eleventy-First Ward...  But but those you claim to sustain have followed the process the Lord has outlined and you can and should sustain that.  If you want to wash your hands of a fellow brother of sister of Christ then that makes it  even so more abundantly clear you have no stewardship or authority to call them to task on a perceived failure on doing their calling.  Nothing anywhere give you that stewardship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How did the event coordinator get called and given stewardship?  Did they take it upon themselves?  Or did someone with authority call them?..  I think based on the process the Lord has laid out it is clear we have a chain or line of authority between the event coordinator and the First Presidency and through the first Presidency Christ himself.  That is how the event coordinator got called.  Either you can respect the Lord's process or you can murmur against it.

It is true you only at best indirectly sustained the event coordinator or the Relief Society second counselor in the Hottentot Eleventy-First Ward...  But but those you claim to sustain have followed the process the Lord has outlined and you can and should sustain that.  If you want to wash your hands of a fellow brother of sister of Christ then that makes it  even so more abundantly clear you have no stewardship or authority to call them to task on a perceived failure on doing their calling.  Nothing anywhere give you that stewardship

On what basis, then, could McKenna Denson have told Joseph Bishop to quit groping her?  

On what basis could she have filed a report to secular authorities to take action against him?  

On what basis can I, as a priesthood-holding Church member who is also a state’s attorney, participate legal action against an LDS suspected child abuser who has not been released from his/her ward callings?

Your argument seems to be that if the prophet (or at least, a GA) hasn’t intervened regarding a local leader’s actions, I as a Church member can’t intervene either; even if the local leader has clearly gone rogue.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nissan said:

Which is more important saying a few words and raising a hand or what my heart desires?

Does it really matter if I sustained with my hand or not or is it a question with which you can then use as a weapon to discard anything I say?

How many people, how many members raise their hands yet their hearts are far from the teachings?

The prophets and apostles and scriptures have already spoken many times on this. Unlike do many hypocritical members I sustain with all my heart the Doctrine of Christ and His Holy Word. I do not sustain false gods or fake ideologies regardless of who they come from.

But that is perfectly fine, continue to think that merely raising your hand and then preaching a false doctrine contrary to God's laws is better than a man who doesn't sustain because he's rather his heart align with his words.

What is more important what your heart desires or the Word of the Lord?

Common consent never dedicated truth or the Word of God.  Common consent was/is our chance to say we will follow the Lord or we will not.

The Lord has setup his church.  He is established means of correcting it when it errs...  Either we consent to doing it the Lords way or we do not.  That is not false doctrine that is obeying the Lord.

But if you wish to murmur and complain against the Lord ways that is your right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

What is more important what your heart desires or the Word of the Lord?

Common consent never dedicated truth or the Word of God.  Common consent was/is our chance to say we will follow the Lord or we will not.

The Lord has setup his church.  He is established means of correcting it when it errs...  Either we consent to doing it the Lords way or we do not.  That is not false doctrine that is obeying the Lord.

But if you wish to murmur and complain against the Lord ways that is your right

So you'd rather use the question of whether I raised my hand or not as a weapon.

Edited by Nissan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On what basis, then, could McKenna Denson have told Joseph Bishop to quit groping her?  On what basis could she have filed a report to secular authorities to take action against him?

For the groping Joseph Bishop was then directly interfering with her own personal stewardship of her body and nothing in his stewardship gave him rights to her person.  Thus in that case her stewardship is the greater and more authoritive.   For the criminal charges... "We believe in Obeying Honoring and sustaining the Law"  In as much as Joseph Bishop (or anyone) breaks the law one is entitled to then invoke the law against them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How did the event coordinator get called and given stewardship?  Did they take it upon themselves?  Or did someone with authority call them?..  I think based on the process the Lord has laid out it is clear we have a chain or line of authority between the event coordinator and the First Presidency and through the first Presidency Christ himself.  That is how the event coordinator got called.  Either you can respect the Lord's process or you can murmur against it.

So by this logic, neither you nor anyone else can question my gospel doctrine teaching style, even if it's 50 solid minutes of Vort's Opinions. Because, you know, I was called by Priesthood authority, and so it's like Jesus Christ himself put me in that position.

I agree with you that, in general, it's a bad idea to complain about how people fulfill their callings. For the most part, it's not any of our business. But when temples start giving public platforms to openly pro-homosexuality groups, I cannot understand how voicing concern on the matter is out of bounds. Again, if the First Presidency has approved this, I'll keep my opinions to myself. Otherwise, your arguments seem pretty thin and don't convince me that I'm doing wrong by saying, "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nissan said:

So you'd rather use the question of whether I raised my hand or not as a weapon.

I do not care if you raised your hand or not... It is not my business.

However attacking the Church and its leaders because you do not like how things are happening is very much a concern of mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

For the groping Joseph Bishop was then directly interfering with her own personal stewardship of her body and nothing in his stewardship gave him rights to her person.  Thus in that case her stewardship is the greater and more authoritive.   For the criminal charges... "We believe in Obeying Honoring and sustaining the Law"  In as much as Joseph Bishop (or anyone) breaks the law one is entitled to then invoke the law against them. 

Just so.  And I’ve already argued that the temple presidency has interfered with my personal stewardship to sustain and defend certain principles, persons and institutions (to wit the Gospel, the Prophets, and the Church); and the temple presidency has no stewardship to interfere with that or to embarrass the Church as a whole.  And just as we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law; we also believe in standing for truth and righteousness and as witnesses of God in all things, at all times and in all places.

I mean, are you suggesting that if my bishop allows my meetinghouse to be used as a brothel every Thursday night, I can’t say “boo” about it until such time as the general authorities choose to act?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nissan said:

Yes the Lord did provide a way to correct the church... It's called the Body of Christ.  What happens when the body of Christ is corrupted and desires that which is wicked?

Wrong...  The Lord either corrects it with the Word of God preached by people he has called to that task.  If that fails then he chastises it with the rod of the wicked... and if that fails it gets destroyed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I do not care if you raised your hand or not... It is not my business.

However attacking the Church and its leaders because you do not like how things are happening is very much a concern of mine

So it matters not what is taught as long as I simply say "I follow the leader". The stake president could start preaching from the pulpit we are all aliens and I should just be expected to obey and sustain....bc if I feign to say no SP you are preaching false doctrine I'm attacking the church.

I should just sit down shut up and simply trust that the guy above the SP will correct him.... Except what happens if the GA starts preaching that?

I have no ability to say that's not right it doesn't match with any scriptures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Wrong...  The Lord either corrects it with the Word of God preached by people he has called to that task.  If that fails then he chastises it with the rod of the wicked... and if that fails it gets destroyed.

 

 

So I have no responsibility as a member? I have no responsibility to raised my hand in opposition when a leader starts teaching false doctrine?

Then why ask for a sustaining vote? So you can use it as a weapon to determine if I follow lockstep, regardless of whether I actually do-i just need to proclaim I follow?

There is a scripture that comes to mind about lips saying one thing and the heart saying another....

Edited by Nissan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Roman Catholic Church has literally centuries of intimate experience with farflung dioceses around the world varying from the Papal word. Frankly, they haven't handled it all that well; I expect many Catholics would agree with that assessment.

We are in the process of becoming a worldwide Church, and are experiencing many of those same issues. Since we believe we have a true prophet of Jesus Christ at the helm of the Church, central instruction is extraordinarily important. In this, we are in very much the same situation as the Catholics, who believe their Pope to be the infallible emissary of Christ.

I am not at all surprised (disheartened, yes, but not surprised) that a temple presidency somewhere might think it a wonderful idea to sponsor a homosexual choir. But that doesn't mean the action was approved by Salt Lake, nor does it mean I should openly support it and laud the forward-looking nature of this wonderful, inclusive action. I will not adopt the attitudes and terminology of a wicked, corrupt society that seeks to destroy what I hold dear, even if it's politically correct to do so. I will try to follow the Lord in all things.

You seem to think that, in this case, following the Lord means shutting up about my misgivings. You may be right, but I don't agree. I find the decision itself appalling on its face, and I find the rush to justify and support this decision almost as appalling. I freely admit that I might be the one out of sync with the Lord's plans, but until I get something more concretely authoritative than "some temple presidency decided to sponsor this homosexual group's performance", I will not be falling in line any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

So by this logic, neither you nor anyone else can question my gospel doctrine teaching style, even if it's 50 solid minutes of Vort's Opinions. Because, you know, I was called by Priesthood authority, and so it's like Jesus Christ himself put me in that position.

Incorrect...  Your Sunday School President, Bishop, Stake President  all have stewardship over you. They absolutely can.  Brother Generic class member can talk to you directly private he can also go up the chain in private. 

What he should not do is grab a megaphone and shout to anyone and everyone he can reach about his issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Incorrect...  Your Sunday School President, Bishop, Stake President  all have stewardship over you. They absolutely can.  Brother Generic class member can talk to you directly private he can also go up the chain in private. 

What he should not do is grab a megaphone and shout to anyone and everyone he can reach about his issues

Follow the leader.... Even if the leader is corrupt and wicked. I don't think that is how it's supposed to go.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Incorrect...  Your Sunday School President, Bishop, Stake President  all have stewardship over you. They absolutely can.  Brother Generic class member can talk to you directly private he can also go up the chain in private. 

What he should not do is grab a megaphone and shout to anyone and everyone he can reach about his issues

You know, I don't really disagree with you. Your point seems to be that I (we) should not be voicing our displeasure on this public forum. I don't know. Maybe you're right. I would absolutely hate turning into a conservative Joanna Brooks. On the other hand, when evil and corruption rear up, should we not identify them for what they are? Obviously, there are far more important things to get upset about than that an avowed homosexual choir sings on temple grounds. But the fact that X is much worse than Y doesn't mean that Y is okay, or that we should not bother pointing out that Y is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Roman Catholic Church has literally centuries of intimate experience with farflung dioceses around the world varying from the Papal word. Frankly, they haven't handled it all that well; I expect many Catholics would agree with that assessment.

We are in the process of becoming a worldwide Church, and are experiencing many of those same issues. Since we believe we have a true prophet of Jesus Christ at the helm of the Church, central instruction is extraordinarily important. In this, we are in very much the same situation as the Catholics, who believe their Pope to be the infallible emissary of Christ.

I am not at all surprised (disheartened, yes, but not surprised) that a temple presidency somewhere might think it a wonderful idea to sponsor a homosexual choir. But that doesn't mean the action was approved by Salt Lake, nor does it mean I should openly support it and laud the forward-looking nature of this wonderful, inclusive action. I will not adopt the attitudes and terminology of a wicked, corrupt society that seeks to destroy what I hold dear, even if it's politically correct to do so. I will try to follow the Lord in all things.

You seem to think that, in this case, following the Lord means shutting up about my misgivings. You may be right, but I don't agree. I find the decision itself appalling on its face, and I find the rush to justify and support this decision almost as appalling. I freely admit that I might be the one out of sync with the Lord's plans, but until I get something more concretely authoritative than "some temple presidency decided to sponsor this homosexual group's performance", I will not be falling in line any time soon.

I agree, I think to many people sunscibe waaaaay to many actions, thoughts, desires directly to the Q15.

Really the only thing you can actually subscribe to them directly is anything they directly say or directly sign. Otherwise..... Who knows where it came from or whether it bares their stamp of approval.

Orthodox members subscribe waaaay to much dictitorial or micromanaging control to the Q15. There is much more latitude from the top than most people realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

You know, I don't really disagree with you. Your point seems to be that I (we) should not be voicing our displeasure on this public forum. I don't know. Maybe you're right. I would absolutely hate turning into a conservative Joanna Brooks. On the other hand, when evil and corruption rear up, should we not identify them for what they are? Obviously, there are far more important things to get upset about than that an avowed homosexual choir sings on temple grounds. But the fact that X is much worse than Y doesn't mean that Y is okay, or that we should not bother pointing out that Y is bad.

The problem with this is silence from members who know it is going on is acquiecense.

If I'm a non-member and I see this and there is no pushback from members, I will simply assume the religion and there members agree with it.

Things done privately don't need to be broadcast publicly. But actions broadcast publicly require public discussion or it amounts to acceptance of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

You know, I don't really disagree with you. Your point seems to be that I (we) should not be voicing our displeasure on this public forum. I don't know. Maybe you're right. I would absolutely hate turning into a conservative Joanna Brooks. On the other hand, when evil and corruption rear up, should we not identify them for what they are? Obviously, there are far more important things to get upset about than that an avowed homosexual choir sings on temple grounds. But the fact that X is much worse than Y doesn't mean that Y is okay, or that we should not bother pointing out that Y is bad.

The thing is, two people in this very discussion have taken the invitation as evidence that the institutional church is softening and will continue to soften its stance vis a vis the sinfulness of gay sex.  And these are people who are generally sympathetic to the Church and its teachings.  Imagine how the rest of the world is interpreting this! 

Yes, deference and patience and charity for our errant brothers and sisters in the Gospel are good—until someone says or does something that is broadly taken to support sin and leads others into sin; and then we need to immediately and vociferously rebut the statement/action.  We may want to hesitate for a moment if the person we’re refuting is a person we’ve directly voted to sustain in their calling—but I’ve checked the latest General Conference transcript; and temple presidencies don’t qualify.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is, two people in this very discussion have taken the invitation as evidence that the institutional church is softening and will continue to soften its stance vis a vis the sinfulness of gay sex.  And these are people who are generally sympathetic to the Church and its teachings.  Imagine how the rest of the world is interpreting this! 

Yes, deference and patience and charity for our errant brothers and sisters in the Gospel are good—until someone says or does something that is broadly taken to support sin and leads others into sin; and then we need to immediately and vociferously rebut the statement/action.  We may want to hesitate for a moment if the person we’re refuting is a person we’ve directly voted to sustain in their calling—but I’ve checked the latest General Conference transcript; and temple presidencies don’t qualify.  

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

our tactics should not be to try to degrade the leadership of the church.

On this, I am sure we are all in agreement. The only possible "denigration" of any Church leaders on this thread has been in response to those accusing us (me) of not supporting our leaders, when what is meant by "sustaining one's leaders" has been discussed. I have specifically said many times that if the First Presidency approved this, I will withdraw all criticism, even if I have private misgivings. Others have agreed with this. So I really do not think that the disbelief voiced on this forum toward the decision made to allow the openly homosexual Gay Men's Choir to perform on temple grounds bears any deep resemblance to the anti-leadership hostility and even open apostasy so often displayed on the so-called Bloggernacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes 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.   

We should stand on principle.

If we want to get into a discussion of right way vs wrong way of how to handle something we will spend more time bickering about that then spending time standing for principle.

No wonder growth rates for the church are in the tank and decelerating every year. Internal dissent doesn't help people join an organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

On this, I am sure we are all in agreement. The only possible "denigration" of any Church leaders on this thread has been in response to those accusing us (me) of not supporting our leaders, when what is meant by "sustaining one's leaders" has been discussed. I have specifically said many times that if the First Presidency approved this, I will withdraw all criticism, even if I have private misgivings. Others have agreed with this. So I really do not think that the disbelief voiced on this forum toward the decision made to allow the openly homosexual Gay Men's Choir to perform on temple grounds bears any deep resemblance to the anti-leadership hostility and even open apostasy so often displayed on the so-called Bloggernacle.

Not yet... 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.  That behavior is like a cancer that grows until we are apostatizing.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nissan said:

We should stand on principle.

If we want to get into a discussion of right way vs wrong way of how to handle something we will spend more time bickering about that then spending time standing for principle.

No wonder growth rates for the church are in the tank and decelerating every year. Internal dissent doesn't help people join an organization.

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

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