Moksha Posted May 25, 2008 Report Posted May 25, 2008 I must point out that this LOOK article was published in 1963, long before I suspect that Andrew777 was born. While his use of words today is regretable. We must remember that 1963 was a far different era than 2008 is today. This choice of words was unfortunate even in 1963. There is no way to sugar coat it or even reason to try. The important thing is that the leaders of the Church are more sensitive today.
MichaelPAGuy Posted May 25, 2008 Report Posted May 25, 2008 I am a former member of the church. It just seems like every mormon is answer is because "they are called from god." I don't hear that small voice, I never did.
pam Posted May 25, 2008 Report Posted May 25, 2008 I am a former member of the church. It just seems like every mormon is answer is because "they are called from god." I don't hear that small voice, I never did. Perhaps it's because that's what we believe.
Jenamarie Posted May 25, 2008 Report Posted May 25, 2008 Jumping in kind of late into this, but I found this scripture in the NT today, and thought it applied pretty well to the slightly-off-topic topic of honoring our leaders within the church:1st Thessalonians 5:12-1312 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Here's a link to the entire chapter, if you'd like to read it in context. :)
Adeipho Posted May 25, 2008 Report Posted May 25, 2008 I am a former member of the church. It just seems like every mormon is answer is because "they are called from god." I don't hear that small voice, I never did. Im sorry you never heard the small voice. I've been there and I've also felt my prayers were not reaching past my own roof top. You have my sympathy
Snow Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Here is the link, for those who desire to learn the truth behind the out of context use of the "Quote"Mormonism 201: Chapter 16It doesn't sound any better 'in context' than it does out of context. The language was unfortunate and reflective of the Jim Crow attitude in Utah up through the 60's.And fortunately in the 60's, then Elder Spencer Kimball had the courage and humility to begin searching out answers to the prohibition of the priesthood for the blacks and set the stage for what was to come in the 70's, a little late perhaps, but not too late.
Snow Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Since we're discussing history and a historian....I decided to look back to history for a response to you...this is what I found. I've taken excepts, but the link to the entire speech is listed below...."Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness."Like Welch's view of the junior Senator from Wisconsin, until I read your response to this sister from Austrailia, I never had a handle on your level of cruelty. If I responded to a certain supporter of yours on this thread, the way you responded to Laura Cook...I'd find myself banned faster than I could spell the word.You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?Snow, from this moment on...I will NEVER again respond to ANYTHING you post. You have attacked me, you have called me a liar repeatedly, you and your coven have made spurious comments about me and my opinions. Well no more...For you to question the sexual morality of a young sister, in light of what is PUBLICALLY known about the sexual immorality of an excommunicated Professor at the Y....well....Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.American Rhetoric: McCarthy-Welch Exchange During the Army-McCarthy HearingsOh my land of Goshen. Still obsessing about what other people do behind their bedroom doors? And what's up with the drama queen act?Don't you think that's just a wee bit over the top MyDogSkip? Come on now - just a little?And let's be honest... the reason that I called you on your honesty was because you fabricated untrue things about the excommunication of Dr. Quinn - not surprisingly obsessing about his personal sex life. Now here's a hint that may help you out... let God worry about other people's morality and you worry about your own sins.
Guest lauracooke78 Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Oh my land of Goshen. Still obsessing about what other people do behind their bedroom doors? And what's up with the drama queen act? Don't you think that's just a wee bit over the top MyDogSkip? Come on now - just a little? And let's be honest... the reason that I called you on your honesty was because you fabricated untrue things about the excommunication of Dr. Quinn - not surprisingly obsessing about his personal sex life. Now here's a hint that may help you out... let God worry about other people's morality and you worry about your own sins.LOL, we could have a competition about melodrama "over the top"ness Snow and your obsession over people's lives in their bedroom would be up there with the best. Why are you so sentimentally connected to this issue? Anyway, I wanted to make a clarigying point about my opinion. If a person is living in moral sin, then they do not have the receipt of the Holy Ghost. I'm sure i could back that up with scripture and I know members understand this idea. So the only credit a person has when writing things about the church is secular credit. It cannot be anything inspiring (as in spiritual) and they cannot claim it to be so. Yes it may be a good read, but that is all.
Guest User-Removed Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 LOL, we could have a competition about melodrama "over the top"ness Snow and your obsession over people's lives in their bedroom would be up there with the best. Why are you so sentimentally connected to this issue? Anyway, I wanted to make a clarigying point about my opinion. If a person is living in moral sin, then they do not have the receipt of the Holy Ghost. I'm sure i could back that up with scripture and I know members understand this idea. So the only credit a person has when writing things about the church is secular credit. It cannot be anything inspiring (as in spiritual) and they cannot claim it to be so. Yes it may be a good read, but that is all.Laura...sadly, there are yanks in this world who are simply a waste of human skin. I'm sorry that you have been so viciously attacked by one, more comfortable in supporting Apostates and Athiests, rather than Apostles.
Guest Seraphim Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 The insults in this thread need to stop and references should be given when quotes are posted. Seraphim
Snow Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 LOL, we could have a competition about melodrama "over the top"ness Snow and your obsession over people's lives in their bedroom would be up there with the best. Why are you so sentimentally connected to this issue? Anyway, I wanted to make a clarigying point about my opinion. If a person is living in moral sin, then they do not have the receipt of the Holy Ghost. I'm sure i could back that up with scripture and I know members understand this idea. So the only credit a person has when writing things about the church is secular credit. It cannot be anything inspiring (as in spiritual) and they cannot claim it to be so. Yes it may be a good read, but that is all.Look lauracooke,My point is this - and I think I have been more than clear. Having strong convictions on the importance of righteous living and avoiding sin (and teaching to avoid sin) is all well and good - and important.When someone (a sinner - we are all sinners) gets all self-righteous and lambasts the sinfulness of another sinner, we are doing exactly what Christ said we should not do 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' We would be judging unrighteously which is also forbidden.It is especially immature and even unrighteous when someone attacks another because of their sexual morality. We are all sinners - I may not be sleeping around but neither am I perfect - someone (and that's all of us) that have looked at another woman or man with a bit of lust have committed adultery in our hearts. Besides the unrighteousness of attacking others personally for their morality, in this case gay-bashing, it is simply a backward, hick, rube thing to do and I am ashamed when Mormons do it. We ought be held to a higher standard.Now I know you made (that I read) only one post on the matter of Dr. Quinn, but I thought it was backwards and uncalled for. I teach my children to, as God has commanded, love the sinner, despite their sins. And as to the whether Dr, Quinn or anyone else is living in moral sin (and so lacking the Holy Ghost) - you just don't know. All you know is that he is gay. Being gay doesn't mean that you are living immorally. It is having illicit sex (gay or straight) that is the problem and you just don't know anything about that.
Snow Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Laura...sadly, there are yanks in this world who are simply a waste of human skin. I'm sorry that you have been so viciously attacked by one, more comfortable in supporting Apostates and Athiests, rather than Apostles.Oh MyDogSkip,Do you really intend for me to take you seriously? Can I have a hug?
Guest Seraphim Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 It's time to close this thread. Seraphim
Recommended Posts