LDS Opinion on Appropriate Missionary Behavior

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, old said:

I 100% totally agree; literally it came so far out of the blue; I had to double-take. I still to this day 10 months, bewildered by it.

Well, I’m the house “liberal” and my heart breaks for your story, but I’m not surprised. I’ve said it here recently several times because it’s absolutely right. It a ward starts to exclude others, it’ll eventually exclude those who agree totally with it’s teachings. The revolution came for Robespierre too. 
 

Again, your story breaks my heart. From the exclusion to the ridiculous restraining order, it’s just so sad.  

[old]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@The Folk Prophet-who I don’t know offline either (and both of us are much happier due to that) is no left winger. 

Which is fine; I don't know him either. There was no intended dig.

My only point is that the comment which effectively states "regardless of what has happened to you, you better stick with the Church b/c if you don't you are damned" is the exact same attitude that drove away my wife.

The text from this nasty woman stated STE "if you don't like the way we are teaching the class, and you don't sustain the Prophet (side comment, which is silly b/c we never brought anything of that into any conversation nor was there any discussion of it, and really what she was saying is "I SUSTAIN the Prophet and b/c I SUSTAIN the prophet and I have been called by God, who called the Bishop, who called the SP, who called the Prophet-therefor what I teach is what the Prophet would want taught here and b/c I am the called leader, if you don't SUSTAIN ME-you are vicariously not sustaining the prophet"); well you better find yourself a different Church".

Well okay then.  With friends like that who needs enemies!!!

 

[old]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well, I’m the house “liberal” and my heart breaks for your story, but I’m not surprised. I’ve said it here recently several times because it’s absolutely right. It a ward starts to exclude others, it’ll eventually exclude those who agree totally with it’s teachings. The revolution came for Robespierre too. 
 

Again, your story breaks my heart. From the exclusion to the ridiculous restraining order, it’s just so sad.  

COVID really did a number on things.  My parents visited Church for the blessing of my youngest.  Church is open, masks were not required, most wore them some did not, we were not the only ones who didn't.  The Bishop refused to shake my fathers hand.  Like my dad was a leper. Okay . . .whatever man.

Then the shots really did another number; people getting up in F&T meeting saying they were getting the shot b/c they follow the Prophet. Clearly since we didn't wear masks, we didn't get the shot (never told anyone one way or the other . . .except someone who consider a great friend). This individual after I said, we have a disagreement; I don't see it the same way, he broke off communication for about a year. 

I mean I get it; no one wants to die RIGHT NOW.  But I'm come very close to death in my life and I have a different opinion; God will call me when he calls me; I won't go looking for it; but I'm not going to live my life in fear of it.

That didn't go over well at all.

I told my buddy, who broke off comms for about a year right before he broke off comms.  I said; I really wish they hadn't done this . . . all it has done and will do is drive people apart.  I don't feel the need to get the shot; I've prayed about it, we don't feel the need for it.  If others want to do it-that's cool.

Went over like a lead balloon.

The downstream effects of putting a stake in the ground.  Especially when the SP comes and beats the pulpit telling everyone to get the shot and we have a Prophet; we could literally throw away the entire volume of scriptures and we would be 100% okay b/c we have a prophet.

Umm . . .okay man.  I mean Lehi was a prophet and they went back to get the brass plates, if all they needed was a prophet why did they go back???

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, old said:

COVID really did a number on things.  My parents visited Church for the blessing of my youngest.  Church is open, masks were not required, most wore them some did not, we were not the only ones who didn't.  The Bishop refused to shake my fathers hand.  Like my dad was a leper. Okay . . .whatever man.

Then the shots really did another number; people getting up in F&T meeting saying they were getting the shot b/c they follow the Prophet. Clearly since we didn't wear masks, we didn't get the shot (never told anyone one way or the other . . .except someone who consider a great friend). This individual after I said, we have a disagreement; I don't see it the same way, he broke off communication for about a year. 

I mean I get it; no one wants to die RIGHT NOW.  But I'm come very close to death in my life and I have a different opinion; God will call me when he calls me; I won't go looking for it; but I'm not going to live my life in fear of it.

That didn't go over well at all.

I told my buddy, who broke off comms for about a year right before he broke off comms.  I said; I really wish they hadn't done this . . . all it has done and will do is drive people apart.  I don't feel the need to get the shot; I've prayed about it, we don't feel the need for it.  If others want to do it-that's cool.

Went over like a lead balloon.

The downstream effects of putting a stake in the ground.  Especially when the SP comes and beats the pulpit telling everyone to get the shot and we have a Prophet; we could literally throw away the entire volume of scriptures and we would be 100% okay b/c we have a prophet.

Umm . . .okay man.  I mean Lehi was a prophet and they went back to get the brass plates, if all they needed was a prophet why did they go back???

I wish you, and your family the best my friend. 

[old]

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well, I’m the house “liberal” and my heart breaks for your story, but I’m not surprised. I’ve said it here recently several times because it’s absolutely right. It a ward starts to exclude others, it’ll eventually exclude those who agree totally with it’s teachings. The revolution came for Robespierre too. 
 

Again, your story breaks my heart. From the exclusion to the ridiculous restraining order, it’s just so sad.  

I'm totally cool with liberals (not that I agree philosophically or theologically) but what I mean is I get it. 

Inclusion for all is simply a lie. There must be a boundary of what is acceptable to be "in the group" and what is unacceptable.

There will always be a boundary.  I don't mind a boundary; I don't mind saying "here is what one must believe in order to be apart of the group". Yep, totally agree with that mindset.

What I disagree with (and what I think you are getting at) is that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to tell others, "hey this is the group and this is the boundary of what it means to be in the group; we want you to be in the group, but here is what you need to do to conform to be in the group".   If you are unwilling to do so we will politely say in the best way possible "we don't think you are a good fit for the group".

100% totally agree with that. And that is what I mean when I say I'm cool with liberals, liberals want to have a group that says "hey LGBTQ+ come on in; to be apart of the group you must accept and love them".  Totally cool.  I won't be apart of that group, I don't begrudge that; I think it's wrong; but cool-go have that group.

Just don't begrudge me b/c I want to be in a group that says the opposite.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, old said:

The text from this nasty woman stated STE "if you don't like the way we are teaching the class, and you don't sustain the Prophet (side comment, which is silly b/c we never brought anything of that into any conversation nor was there any discussion of it, and really what she was saying is "I SUSTAIN the Prophet and b/c I SUSTAIN the prophet and I have been called by God, who called the Bishop, who called the SP, who called the Prophet-therefor what I teach is what the Prophet would want taught here and b/c I am the called leader, if you don't SUSTAIN ME-you are vicariously not sustaining the prophet"); well you better find yourself a different Church".

FWIW, I've heard commentary and feedback from people that is similar and I despise it. D&C 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Yep.

11 minutes ago, old said:

"regardless of what has happened to you, you better stick with the Church b/c if you don't you are damned"

The covenant path is the only path to exaltation. You have some issues, apparently, with that gospel truth. I don't feel like I deserve the blame for that for merely stating it.

 

[old]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I've heard commentary and feedback from people that is similar and I despise it. D&C 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Yep.

The covenant path is the only path to exaltation. You have some issues, apparently, with that gospel truth. I don't feel like I deserve the blame for that for merely stating it.

 

Saying I have issues with gospel truth is different than saying effectively I and my future generations will be damned for not sticking with it.

Yes, I do have issues.  But to a large part most of the issues are things that I can overlook.  I don't agree with BY; I don't agree with the typical line that JS practiced polygamy; I don't think he ever did.  Yet I also think that what actually happened during those years is pretty darn murky (so it is possible he did)-the history has been written and re-written and when comparing what is in the JS papers to the current narrative I see inconsistencies.  I understand why regardless of whether he did or did not the Church must say JS instituted polygamy. The Church has to say that; because the Church is built upon a line of continuous righteous prophets who in the modern Church teaching must be right in what they do; because God will never allow the Church to go astray and will remove a man who gets it wrong.

Therefore, there is no room, no ability for the Church to say . . .yeah this guy got it wrong . . . it is a dance of "this was right then, it isn't right now, that is why x/y/z changes".

I take JS at his word when he said he had a theophany. I see no reason not to. I think the Book of Mormon is a pretty amazing book.  It is hard for me to fathom a man uninspired by God to write such a book. 

I don't have a problem with Temple rites . . . which are liturgical in nature. However, Temple rites were not written down until long, long after JS was dead.  JS certainly created some form of Temple/liturgical rites, yet that form is vastly different than today and even the covenants are different than today. The Church has an easy out; a continuous line of righteous prophet who are not wrong.

I think tithing is a great thing; I disagree with how tithing is taught but I agree that tithing is in principle an absolutely necessary and wonderful thing.

Every bit of that I have overlooked and given the benefit of the doubt to.  Not a big deal. I can calculate my tithing; pay my tithing and answer honestly. If someone wants more details or questions me; I will respond.

Yet there are some things that are fundamentally deal breakers.  The purpose of religion is to teach people how best to live their lives and to worship God.  One of the fundamental aspects of Christianity is the knowledge that our thoughts are not necessarily us and that the greatest struggle in an individuals live is the struggle of the heart (i.e. discarding thoughts that are unGodly and disciplining our internal passions-that all external sins come from undisciplined internal passions).

If one particular group of individuals gets a pass on those passions (i.e. it's acceptable to internally be undisciplined on thoughts, but unacceptable to act out those things in life) in real life; I found that position internally and theologically inconsistent.  And that is a theological viewpoint in which God plays favorites.

So I would prefer a more honest approach, if it is acceptable to be internally undisciplined in some thought pattern, then it should be acceptable for that thought pattern to be acted out in life.

Which means, if it is acceptable for individuals to be sexually/romantically/etc. attracted to the same-sex, then it should be acceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world.

If it is unacceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world, then it should be unacceptable for someone to be sexually or romantically attracted to the same-sex. 

There are many things that I have enacted in the world that are unacceptable; but I have to both change my outward actions and my inward actions.

A religion that is inconsistent in that aspect; is one that cannot hold itself together because it will always be making excuses for bad behavior and bad thought patterns.  One day it is same-sex sexual desire.  What is the difference between same-sex sexual desire and desire to steal a car? 

Currently, in the LDS Church it appears that in the first an individual can openly tell others they desire that which is forbidden; they can ruminate on it; think about it; explore those thoughts, feelings and it is acceptable.  As long as one does not physically act on it.

In the second, we are told to change ourselves that one should not think thoughts about stealing a car, that those thoughts come from the evil one to tempt us.  No one goes around "coming out" as someone who desires to steal cars, no one says "the desire to steal a car is intrinsic to my very core and if I do not tell everyone that I desire to steal cars I will kill myself."

At the end of the day; the Orthodox are consistent in their teachings about the heart. 

I'd rather that be the message taught to my children than whether we have a living prophet who can see around corners and someone who prophesy and can foretell the future.

It would be great to have both-that was my youth.  It is not today.

[zil2]

9 minutes ago, old said:

Currently, in the LDS Church it appears that in the first an individual can openly tell others they desire that which is forbidden; they can ruminate on it; think about it; explore those thoughts, feelings and it is acceptable.

I don't believe this statement is correct.  There may be some members of the Church who think and teach this - like the ones in your ward - but I don't see this teaching coming from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  If someone can find a citation otherwise, one that I can go and read for myself, I'd like to read it.

IMO, right now there's a struggle in the Church with members who cannot figure out what to say or how to say it and who fear to offend man more than they fear to offend God.  But that's some members, not all, and not the leading quorums of the Church.

[old]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't feel like I deserve the blame for that for merely stating it.

I don't blame you for stating that you believe the LDS Church is the only path; in fact I think it's excellent that you believe that and state that.

It is the circle the wagons mentality and the immediate "if you leave you are damned" mentality. That literally does nothing-and in fact drives people away rather than helps.  It feels good for those who "circle the wagons" . . . but all it does is treat others as enemies.

And it's like . . .well okay . . .if the religion/culture/people who are LDS treat those who have had a rough time of it as enemies . . . maybe just maybe it's not a good place to be. And it's cool, look every religion is going to have THAT guy or THAT person who is just a jerk.

Expecting everyone to be angels is unreasonable.  Yet if it's a YW president, it's a Bishop, it's a SP, it's an FSY Director (that's another story!!!), if it's the common ward member, if it's the random guy on the internet...

At some point . . . it's like okay, maybe I'm the problem or maybe it's the culture/religion that is the problem. Let me got somewhere else and see how they treat others.  Maybe it's a me problem.  Let me find a different Christian group and see . . .is it any different.  Oh . . yeah it is . . .they don't treat those who fall away like this.

Do a reddit search for "ex-orthodox", do a reddit search for "ex-mormon".  It's eye-opening.  Okay sure the LDS rational is "well we have the truth and those who fall away are just bitter and angry and hate us".  That's one narrative. It might be the true narrative.

Okay here is another religion who claims it's the one true Church. They don't have these problems. It could be the reason they don't have those problems is because they aren't the "one true Church". Or it could be they don't have these problems because the culture is different.

I mean the Orthodox believe just as strongly that they are the true faith as LDS; yet their entire approach is different. Their entire culture is different.  The problems that exist in LDS just simply do not exist in Orthodox.

Is LDS the True Gospel and Orthodox not? Or is it the reverse?

I honestly don't know; but life is short. And I'd rather live my life without all the drama of the LDS culture.  Maybe there is drama in Orthodox that I haven't seen yet; totally possible.  Yet I've frequented their forums, their on-line culture.  In general it is no where near as toxic; and the problems they are dealing with are more like "hey we need to build church schools to protect our youth". "hey we don't have enough people to teach sunday school, we need more people who are skilled at teaching, more people to step up and not just attend on Sunday".

Yes, you trade one set of problems for another. 

At the same time, I'm old and as I raise my family; the last place I need drama and toxicity in is where I go to Church on Sunday.

[The Folk Prophet]

@old

You still haven't said word one about covenants. I keep bringing it up. You keep ignoring it.

[old]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I don't believe this statement is correct.  There may be some members of the Church who think and teach this - like the ones in your ward - but I don't see this teaching coming from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  If someone can find a citation otherwise, one that I can go and read for myself, I'd like to read it.

IMO, right now there's a struggle in the Church with members who cannot figure out what to say or how to say it and who fear to offend man more than they fear to offend God.  But that's some members, not all, and not the leading quorums of the Church.

I understand how others will say this. My counter-point is that openly homosexual members are temple worthy. Considering this is one of the biggest topics of our age, I have yet to see any GC, talks specifically stating that same-sex thoughts, feelings are not acceptable and should not be indulged in.  Actions, yes.  Fully agree the Church teaches same-sex sexual relations are unacceptable.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

The handbook states:

"https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number109"

"God’s commandments forbid all unchaste behavior, either heterosexual or same-sex."

What the heck is "chaste same-sex (i.e. homosexual behavior)? I literally have no clue.  The handbook leaves it as ambiguous. Yes fully agree that sexual same-sex behavior is unacceptable.  Yet, clearly there are multiple instances of missionaries who come out on facebook, get a platform on social media, post rainbow pictures, advocate for same-sex things.  I've notified Church HQ, written letters, like hey is this acceptable.  Total silence; they are considered worthy; they are. 

From their own mouths they say, Church HQ told them it is acceptable for them to come out and posts these things. The Church brings up on stage in an official capacity at BYU woman's conference an openly queer Young Woman's president.  She is held up as someone to be emulated.  All the while in other venues she will talk about her hot female old flames who she still is in contact with and has sleep-overs with.  Church ensign articles are written about the openly queer man who "came back to church, reconciled with his Bishop" but when he is with the LGBTQ+ group he will discuss how he puts on a nice shirt and tie; looks like everyone else so as to not startle anyone and how when he goes to the Temple he feels the spirits of his dead ancestors all around him stating yes, one-day he will be with his dead lover sealed together for all time.

Yes, every now and then a bone is thrown and the Family Proclamation is talked about from the pulpit.  Elder Oaks will talk about how a YW writes him a letter about how all her LDS "worthy temple going" friends are talking about their same-sex crushes.  And his response is . . sometimes it's hard to stand up for what you believe.

It's like dude man.  Here is a problem-people are telling you there is a problem. You are the leader, start bringing the wood.

The solution for same-sex romantic slow dancing at youth dances . . .let's all dance with the lights turned up. Literally 0 message, 0 message to the youth.  Hey guys, same-sex romantic behavior is unacceptable.  I mean shoot, I remember going to youth dances and we were explicitly told: this is the standard.  If you don't abide by the standard that's okay-you just won't participate.   

okay . . .I guess it's okay to same-sex romantic slow dance with the lights on, but not with the lights off. No wonder the youth are confused.  No one wants to take a stand and say, this is a problem, don't do this. If it's just shuffled under the rug and no one talks about it . . .well they will eventually just figure it out. 

All that I have ever seen is weeping testimony meetings about my child is queer and isn't so great that the ward/stake etc. is so accepting and what does the gospel mean for my child.

Look lady; I got my own set of problems with my kids.  I don't want to know your child is queer. . . .like literally why would I want to know? What possible good could it do.  And why do that to your kid? If my kid was on drugs, I wouldn't get up on stand and say "my child is shacking up with the girl next door on drugs . . . I'm so glad the ward is so accepting . . .what does the gospel mean for him".  I'd be like . . .hey it's a rough time, I'm so glad for good leaders to help show my child the correct way to think, feel and act .. .hopefully if I can't get through to him maybe someone from the ward can.  

 

[old]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@old

You still haven't said word one about covenants. I keep bringing it up. You keep ignoring it.

I'm not sure what you mean.  What do you want to know about it?  Do I wear the garments, yes, do I obey the law of chastity, yes, do I smoke, drink, etc. No.

Frankly, if "keeping my covenants" is the marker of a "worthy" person . . . ain't a whole lot that I want to do with that. Do I have a temple recommend.  Considering it expired after we left and we haven't been back. No.

Did my wife have a temple recommend prior to leaving.  No, but only because she told the Bishop she was upset that the covenant she was told was critical to her salvation that she made in the Temple was changed, no explanation no rational given.  Just, today's it's changed.  You have to accept it.

I mean, that's a pretty darn cruel joke.  Tell someone this covenant you make right here and now is critical to your salvation, but we as the Church can change the actual meaning of that covenant however we feel God tells us to change it and the only acceptable response is you have to like it.

No compassion; hey I can understand why you would feel so upset.  This thing we told you was vital to your eternal salvation, we changed, and look I get you are upset, I think in time if you attend regularly the answers will come.  I will issue a temple recommend for you and I want to help you work through this . . . why don't you attend the temple monthly for the next six months and we can evaluate if things have changed.

Nope; just oh I see you are upset, I think you need more time before you are ready to go to the temple.

I got a Temple recommend after the change b/c I didn't make that covenant; but my wife did.  And I understand her being upset. Did the Bishop understand it; nope.  Literally, she didn't even get asked the first question; because when he asked her, how she was doing she was blunt and said I'm upset because my covenant changed.

Was the YW President and the woman who said such nasty things temple worthy? Yeap you betcha! Goes to the temple regularly. And while my wife has plenty of flaws, she would never in a million years have ever said anything like that to a fellow Christian-it's just not within her character to do so.

So you know if whether someone is "temple worthy" or "keeps there covenants" is the marker of eternal salvation; I think you are focusing on the wrong thing.

[old]

Now people in the LDS Church say "leadership roulette" as the catch-all phrase to ignore or excuse bad leaders.  Hey guys maybe there is a problem with your leadership training.  Maybe there is a problem with your pastoral care?

Maybe the metric of whether someone is a good person can't be measured in whether they answer the Temple Recommend questions properly?

Maybe the metric is "hey don't be angry at your neighbor, love those who oppose you", "control your tongue", "control your mind", "control your heart".  

Because Lord knows while I can answer the Temple questions, yes I don't drink, smoke, I don't have sex with my neighbor's wife . . .you know many many times I get angry at those I shouldn't get angry at.  I say things I shouldn't say. I think things I shouldn't think.

Throughout my time as a member; there were plenty of times I could answer the questions honestly and correctly.  But I wasn't a "good" person.  I'm still not. 

Literally, so what if I go to the Temple and obey the questions.  Is my heart black? Did I say something cruel to my wife, to my children? Did I act out in a manner unbecoming of a disciple of Christ in this instance at work? Was I too prideful, too egotistical in thinking about my own capabilities at work?

Seriously, great, I can answer the Temple questions, I can "keep my covenants" . . . that does jack-all for me about learning to discipline my own mind, my own heart, my own soul to be the man God wants me to be.

[zil2]

@old, clearly your experience in the Church and in the world has been very, very different to mine, so that we can read the same words and understand them very differently.  The Church you describe is nothing like the Church I've been going to for over 5 decades (my entire life).  I sincerely wish you all the best in your walk with God.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, old said:

...

So I would prefer a more honest approach, if it is acceptable to be internally undisciplined in some thought pattern, then it should be acceptable for that thought pattern to be acted out in life.

Which means, if it is acceptable for individuals to be sexually/romantically/etc. attracted to the same-sex, then it should be acceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world.

...

If it is unacceptable to act out those thoughts/feelings in the world, then it should be unacceptable for someone to be sexually or romantically attracted to the same-sex. 

There are many things that I have enacted in the world that are unacceptable; but I have to both change my outward actions and my inward actions.

...

Currently, in the LDS Church it appears that in the first an individual can openly tell others they desire that which is forbidden; they can ruminate on it; think about it; explore those thoughts, feelings and it is acceptable.  As long as one does not physically act on it.

I agree with your philosophy which you outlined (the correct one).  But I disagree that the Church's position is at odds with that philosophy.  The last quote above is not what you seem to think it is.

We never say that it is ok to ruminate on it.  In fact, that is what the Savior warned against in Matt 5.  So, let me clarify what the Church's position is.  While I'm not an official of the Church, I've heard and read enough commentaries from Church leaders that I believe I can give a good summary.

• The fact that we all have weakness and tendencies that are not in line with the Lord's will is obvious.  It is why we need the Atonement.
• Some weaknesses are an underlying motivation to do that which the Lord condemns.  We need to bridle our passions.  We need to do everything we can to prevent these tendencies from turning into action.  Dwelling on those tendencies and thoughts is the first step to actually committing the act.  So STOP dwelling on them.
• Many heterosexual men will look on a woman who is drop dead gorgeous and have a physiological reaction that we don't really have a lot of control over.  And if that man is married, he should do all he can to bridle his passions in that case.
• Let's say he is successful in shaking it off and moves on to think on other things, do we take Matt 5 literally?  Is it the same as actually committing adultery?  NO!  If it were, I believe 95% of all men would need to be excommunicated.  Committing it in his heart is a step further than simply having a reflexive reaction.  The dwelling and fantasizing is a sin.  But it is not actual adultery.  The warning is that if you keep dwelling on it, the act is not far behind.
• The same goes for homosexual thoughts.  The "reaction" may be something that will take a LONG time to change.  But the command to bridle one's thoughts and passions is still given to those with SSA and others.

It is the same standard.

The fact that many tend to interpret it as you do, does not make it a correct interpretation of the Prophets' counsel.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, old said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  What do you want to know about it?  Do I wear the garments, yes, do I obey the law of chastity, yes, do I smoke, drink, etc. No.

Frankly, if "keeping my covenants" is the marker of a "worthy" person . . . ain't a whole lot that I want to do with that. Do I have a temple recommend.  Considering it expired after we left and we haven't been back. No.

Did my wife have a temple recommend prior to leaving.  No, but only because she told the Bishop she was upset that the covenant she was told was critical to her salvation that she made in the Temple was changed, no explanation no rational given.  Just, today's it's changed.  You have to accept it.

I mean, that's a pretty darn cruel joke.  Tell someone this covenant you make right here and now is critical to your salvation, but we as the Church can change the actual meaning of that covenant however we feel God tells us to change it and the only acceptable response is you have to like it.

No compassion; hey I can understand why you would feel so upset.  This thing we told you was vital to your eternal salvation, we changed, and look I get you are upset, I think in time if you attend regularly the answers will come.  I will issue a temple recommend for you and I want to help you work through this . . . why don't you attend the temple monthly for the next six months and we can evaluate if things have changed.

Nope; just oh I see you are upset, I think you need more time before you are ready to go to the temple.

I got a Temple recommend after the change b/c I didn't make that covenant; but my wife did.  And I understand her being upset. Did the Bishop understand it; nope.  Literally, she didn't even get asked the first question; because when he asked her, how she was doing she was blunt and said I'm upset because my covenant changed.

Was the YW President and the woman who said such nasty things temple worthy? Yeap you betcha! Goes to the temple regularly. And while my wife has plenty of flaws, she would never in a million years have ever said anything like that to a fellow Christian-it's just not within her character to do so.

So you know if whether someone is "temple worthy" or "keeps there covenants" is the marker of eternal salvation; I think you are focusing on the wrong thing.

I wrote up a large reply, but the more I consider the more I'm just not sure replying is going to be of much use. You don't seem to understand the import of covenants. Short of encouraging you to research and understand better... I'm just not sure what I can say. And saying more is probably only likely to offend further.

But as a starting point here's a link, as a reminder, that explains what covenants are made in the endowment, for example.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng

Moreover, you're clearly struggling with faith and testimony. 

The church is true or it isn't. What people do in a ward or stake doesn't change that. You need to know that core thing. I encourage you to find out through study, prayer, and faith.

Beyond that, best wishes in your endeavors.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I agree with your philosophy which you outlined (the correct one).  But I disagree that the Church's position is at odds with that philosophy.  The last quote above is not what you seem to think it is.

We never say that it is ok to ruminate on it.  In fact, that is what the Savior warned against in Matt 5.  So, let me clarify what the Church's position is.  While I'm not an official of the Church, I've heard and read enough commentaries from Church leaders that I believe I can give a good summary.

• The fact that we all have weakness and tendencies that are not in line with the Lord's will is obvious.  It is why we need the Atonement.
• Some weaknesses are an underlying motivation to do that which the Lord condemns.  We need to bridle our passions.  We need to do everything we can to prevent these tendencies from turning into action.  Dwelling on those tendencies and thoughts is the first step to actually committing the act.  So STOP dwelling on them.
• Many heterosexual men will look on a woman who is drop dead gorgeous and have a physiological reaction that we don't really have a lot of control over.  And if that man is married, he should do all he can to bridle his passions in that case.
• Let's say he is successful in shaking it off and moves on to think on other things, do we take Matt 5 literally?  Is it the same as actually committing adultery?  NO!  If it were, I believe 95% of all men would need to be excommunicated.  Committing it in his heart is a step further than simply having a reflexive reaction.  The dwelling and fantasizing is a sin.  But it is not actual adultery.  The warning is that if you keep dwelling on it, the act is not far behind.
• The same goes for homosexual thoughts.  The "reaction" may be something that will take a LONG time to change.  But the command to bridle one's thoughts and passions is still given to those with SSA and others.

It is the same standard.

The fact that many tend to interpret it as you do, does not make it a correct interpretation of the Prophets' counsel.

 

I think the concern is (and I understand it) that the church has allowed too many members to misunderstand this by not being more explicit and direct.

[Carborendum]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the concern is (and I understand it) that the church has allowed too many members to misunderstand this by not being more explicit and direct.

That may be.  But it wouldn't be the first time people mistook a prophet's words for license to continue in sin.

And it seems pretty clear to me.  He who must be commanded in all things...

Edited December 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[old]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I agree with your philosophy which you outlined (the correct one).  But I disagree that the Church's position is at odds with that philosophy.  The last quote above is not what you seem to think it is.

We never say that it is ok to ruminate on it.  In fact, that is what the Savior warned against in Matt 5.  So, let me clarify what the Church's position is.  While I'm not an official of the Church, I've heard and read enough commentaries from Church leaders that I believe I can give a good summary.

• The fact that we all have weakness and tendencies that are not in line with the Lord's will is obvious.  It is why we need the Atonement.
• Some weaknesses are an underlying motivation to do that which the Lord condemns.  We need to bridle our passions.  We need to do everything we can to prevent these tendencies from turning into action.  Dwelling on those tendencies and thoughts is the first step to actually committing the act.  So STOP dwelling on them.
• Many heterosexual men will look on a woman who is drop dead gorgeous and have a physiological reaction that we don't really have a lot of control over.  And if that man is married, he should do all he can to bridle his passions in that case.
• Let's say he is successful in shaking it off and moves on to think on other things, do we take Matt 5 literally?  Is it the same as actually committing adultery?  NO!  If it were, I believe 95% of all men would need to be excommunicated.  Committing it in his heart is a step further than simply having a reflexive reaction.  The dwelling and fantasizing is a sin.  But it is not actual adultery.  The warning is that if you keep dwelling on it, the act is not far behind.
• The same goes for homosexual thoughts.  The "reaction" may be something that will take a LONG time to change.  But the command to bridle one's thoughts and passions is still given to those with SSA and others.

It is the same standard.

The fact that many tend to interpret it as you do, does not make it a correct interpretation of the Prophets' counsel.

 

I love this response. I think it is very wise and appropriate. 

My follow-on question, it is entirely possible that I simply have not been paying enough messages that are articulated as above from local leaders all the way to the top.  I simply do not see it.

What I see is that when it is deemed acceptable to be open about LGBTQ+ the other end of the stick that one picks up with that is that it is acceptable to think about who is the cute same-sex guy; discuss about oh "this same-sex individual is so hoootttt".

I mean I have never seen in any video promoted by the Church about individuals who identify as LGBTQ+, any talk given by those who openly identify as such the above message.  

I 100% agree that during my youth the above was simply a given and I think any discipline or excommunication of someone who is privately working through things like the above with a Bishop would be absolutely incorrect.

Only in private moments has someone admitted to me; hey man I struggle with xyz thing.  Okay, yeah man I get it-dude I have my own private struggles.  Here is what I do to when confronted with it.  I literally see no other internal struggle where it is acceptable to openly identify as XYZ.

I mean there is a difference between someone who says, "hey I struggle with pornography" vs. "hey I AM a lesbian". Right, the words "I AM" are extremely powerful. When a person says "I AM" they take on the attributes of whatever the things is that they identify as.

And yes, I heard a talk about labels from Nelson; it was a great talk.  But I look at that and say, "okay cool", if the President of the Church says we should be very careful about the labels we take on (all great and well) . . .then why is the official message of the Church that it is acceptable to identify as LGBTQ+.

Like literally, even a bone on the official webpage like "one should not identify as LGBTQ+" and just leave it at that would be helpful. Don't even mention the Temple; just state a truth: when a person identifies and says "I AM" they take on the attributes of that thing they identify with. This isn't rocket science; it's just a basic truth.

I AM a father; so I learn from my surrounding what a father is; I take on the attributes of what a father is; I learn from others what it means to be a father.  I totally agree with the LGBTQ+; it is a horrible thing to take on an identify and then have people tell you it's okay to take on that identity but you can't really BE that thing.

It's the absolute inconsistencies in stuff like that as I'm raising my kids.  The Church's teachings are not congruent.  I can find articles to support what I was taught and a rebellious youth can find articles to support his/her position. Now I'm at odds with my own children.

Take suicide. Suicide is now not a sin.  It was called a sin growing up.  Elder Ballard had talks in the 80/90s about how suicide is a sin.  Now it's not a sin. In the span of 20-30 years it went from "it is self-murder" to "it's not a sin". Like literally Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!! This isn't a small thing.  It's about whether offing oneself is wrong or not wrong.  If it's not a sin . . . well I guess it's just something that happens, not really a big deal??

I mean . . .that's a pretty big deal to flip on.

And I get it; I think the older generation, been in the Church 50+ years don't see it and that's okay.  I wouldn't expect you to see it.  But I see it and I only see it because I have kids in the youth program and I hear what is being taught to them today from Youth Camps to FSY to local ward activities.

I mean they spent an hour at FSY talking about Heavenly Mother, an entire spiritual devotion.  Umm guys, yeah that's cool and all . . .I guess . . .don't we have bigger problems to worry about like, hey how to self-discipline on watching too many tik-tok videos, to maybe discussing how Facebook/Tic-Tok,etc. will FEED you smut because their algorithms know you are a guy and they push it. 

That would do a heck of a lot more for a child's preparation into the world vs. talking about some esoteric cool "oh look . . .maybe in the next life after eons I'll be a God or a Goddess!!!, cool I have a Heavenly Mother maybe I should pray to her!!!".

Like seriously dudes . . . maybe focus on the problem of watching out for the dangers of getting sucked into soft-core porn inadvertently b/c Facebook/Tic-Tok feeds you garbage just b/c you they know you are a 16 year old male before you talk about being a God.

[old]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the concern is (and I understand it) that the church has allowed too many members to misunderstand this by not being more explicit and direct.

Thank you! Yes this exactly!

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That may be.  But it wouldn't be the first time people mistook a prophet's words for license to continue in sin.

And it seems pretty clear to me.  He who must be commanded in all things...

Whereas I agree with you....

I also understand. When you get into a classroom at church, or at a family party, or etc., and half the people in there are nodding their head in agreement to something egregious and false, it very much does make you worry for your kids' sakes. I mean we homeschool just to keep our kids away from that kind of stuff...and yet we are well aware they'll get it at church. And it seems like such a simple thing for the prophet or an apostle to clarify.

Unlike @old, however, despite my consternation on the same ideas, I trust that God knows what he's doing and that He leads this church, and that for whatever reason that I don't understand, He wants the general confusion instead of the explicit clarity. Which makes a certain sense. I mean Jesus spoke in parables for a reason, right?

I don't fully understand. But I fully trust.

On a side note: apparently in the previous ward we attended (which is my wife's parents' ward), one of the brethren started wearing a dress to church. I mean a dress, high-heels, and carries a cute little purse around. I'm so glad we aren't in that ward any longer. But what do you do about that kind of garbage?! Argh. So frustrating.

Edited December 19, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[old]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That may be.  But it wouldn't be the first time people mistook a prophet's words for license to continue in sin.

And it seems pretty clear to me.  He who must be commanded in all things...

"Commanded in all things" That is more an excuse and carrying water.  

I mean; these kids and the youth today are being assailed from ALL sides being feed smut, filth, waste. And the response is "they shouldn't be commanded in all things"???

How in Heaven's name are they going to know if someone doesn't instruct them. We are going to allow videos/media/etc. to be promoted in our name that shows happy openly identifying LGBTQ+ individuals? We'll promote at the highest levels openly queer youth leaders . . . and then tell the kids . . . well you really need to not indulge in romantic thoughts/feelings about the same-sex.

If I were a kid, I'd be confused as all get out. And if the kid is even remotely rebellious in this area. . . .he'll use the ambiguity of the Church's message as a weapon to get his way.

[old]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whereas I agree with you....

I also understand. When you get into a classroom at church, or at a family party, or etc., and half the people in there are nodding their head in agreement to something egregious and false, it very much does make you worry for your kids' sakes. I mean we homeschool just to keep our kids away from that kind of stuff...and yet we are well aware they'll get it at church. And it seems like such a simple thing for the prophet or an apostle to clarify.

Unlike @old, however, despite my consternation on the same ideas, I trust that God knows what he's doing and that He leads this church, and that for whatever reason that I don't understand, He wants the general confusion instead of the explicit clarity. Which makes a certain sense. I mean Jesus spoke in parables for a reason, right?

I don't fully understand. But I fully trust.

On a side note: apparently in the previous ward we attended (which is my wife's parents' ward), one of the brethren started wearing a dress to church. I mean a dress, high-heels, and carries a cute little purse around. I'm so glad we aren't in that ward any longer. But what do you do about that kind of garbage?! Argh. So frustrating.

Brother, I totally get where you coming from. I do.

What I'm saying is there came a point where it was too much. Where I looked at my kids, my wife, what was happening, the ward, the stake, GC, the messages to youth and said . . . you know what it just ain't worth it.  

I got so many problems raising my own kids that the last thing I need is to worry about THIS being a potential issue at Church.  I simply cannot introduce THIS as a potential issue, where a kid due to whatever fantasy he/she gets into his/her head b/c of a rebellious spirit this becomes a problem.

I simply cannot take that risk.  It's my job to raise these kids; no one else's and I need a Church support system that is unambiguous and clear as to the proper way to live a life. And this ain't it.  It just isn't.

And now there is another potential backlash; and here is one no one thinks about that I'm dealing with.  This ambiguity and acceptance is literally DESTROYING kids faith in God.

I have my own good kid who at 15 doesn't know if he is even Christian . . why? Because when he goes to school all he sees is "Christians" who accept this filth. 

If being a Christian means having to attend the Church where the some dude gets to dress in high-heels and a skirt and make a complete mockery of God and of anything sacred . . .he wants absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

So congratulations all you "acceptance and love"; you made a mockery of God.  You made religion and Christianity a clown-show. You desecrated that which was sacred.  And kids are smart . . . the ones with good hearts are smart.  They see what a clown-show it is and what absolutely nothing to do with it.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, old said:

you know what it just ain't worth it.

It is worth it.

I trust in God that much. I trust accountability will be just.

How can one believe otherwise in today's world?

Either God is just or He is not.

The plain fact is that the garbage is unavoidable. And it's going to get worse. And worse. And worse.

It legitimately and truly frightens me, in particular for my children.

I'm going to run from it too...as much as possible, and as much as it doesn't mean betraying the covenants I made, which matter more to me than anything else.

[Carborendum]

32 minutes ago, old said:

I love this response. I think it is very wise and appropriate. 

My follow-on question...

I don't see anything that I disagree with in that post.  Yet, I'm in an area where staying in the Church does not put my children at risk of being exposed to Sodom and Gumorrah.  You did.

I was hoping that this difference was the only thing that drove you over the edge.  But (and I hope I'm misinterpreting) it seems from your tone, there is a lot more going on in your mind and heart that has not been in mine.  Feel free to correct me. 

I can't read your mind, only your words.