Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ve been thinking about this and have a scenario: What if….a fine, upstanding, TR-holding member comes to the conclusion that he/she is gay….he/she meets another member with the same qualifications and they decide to get married…..they have a find, upstanding friend who is a temple worker that is willing to marry them….
If they decide to get married in the temple….can the church deny them? Would that not set off one heck of a lawsuit?
I know this is kinda far fetched but maybe this is one of the reasons that the church has it’s panties in a wad toward gay folks.
Just sayin…..
Edit: Oh, let me throw this in the mix. The couple are rather elderly and proclaim that they have no desire for sexual relations…they just desire to be married.
Yep. It seems that individual repentance is: acknowledging that you have wronged others, feeling remorse for that, and trying to make amends to those that you have harmed. It seems that Elder Oaks considers the Church above that. At least the Mountain Meadows folks got a stinkin’ plaque.
The blacks didn’t even get that when God changed his mind in ’78.
Sorry to be so crude, but this is just ridiculous.
Thanks Ray. All the best to you and yours. May we all have a new year full of better understanding, more openmindedness, and increased compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves. From my early 40’s until the present (58). I’ve went from TBM, to AUB, to some sort of agnostic/atheist. I still strive to keep an open mind and have become somewhat comfortable with the fact that I’ll probably never “know”… whatever “know” means Like the “flood” and other “wraths of God”….I’ve always been bothered by the destruction of a whole city. Wouldn’t that include pregnant women, little children, etc? How can little children be burned for the behavior of adults by a “loving heavenly father”? Seems a bit excessive to me. Just sayin… I’ve always enjoyed Rock’s blog, even as I disagree with him often. As far as his tone being “anti-Mormon”, I have always admired him for pointing out the differences in what he believes the “Church” should/could be, and what it has regressed into being. Limit yourself to approved teachings, an approved diety, and approved scripture. Have “faith/hope” in what is said in them and you will recieve a personal answer to any question. (and if ya don’t, you weren’t humble enough) Mentally hang on to this warm and fuzzy answer and use it as a defense when any questions/doubts arise. Follow this warm and fuzzy feeling beyond worldly logic/reason and everything is gonna be ok. That’s what I hear being advocated.
That may be what those fellows that flew the jets into our buildings heard/practiced as well. Just sayin.
I have a huge problem with members/missionaries that throw around the word “true”. It’s ok to believe, have faith, feel with all your heart, etc. but claiming some cultural/traditional/mormon-only definition of such a commonly accepted word is not “ok” at all. I call it “Utah-speak”….and it accounts for no small amount of eye-rolling from the general public.
“True” implies, at least I think it is supposed to imply, much more provable data that “I know the Church is true” does. Although members/missionaries don’t seem to mind if the general public, or each other, take their meaning of “true” to mean much more than it does.
I can recall little children, who know Santa Claus is “true”, standing up and saying that little phrase in F&T meetings.
THAT, is cult mentality at it’s worst. IMHO.
Maybe we’re just a short-lived species, that will soon be gone, that evolved an inferior brain that cannot concieve of it’s own non-existance. I hope not, of course, but my hoping doesn’t mean squat.
I would take the other approach and question Elder Holland’s responses. I’ve read them over twice out of disgust. They appear very cowardly and an attempt to circumvent the issues raised. I find nothing virtuous about a person, upon seeing what he/she believes is a fraud, not sharing that with others.
I would also not appreciate someone who believes they have been lied to by someone that many regard as an honest person, not letting others know.
If the institution or the person in question don’t agree….they should speak up.
This is the ongoing problem.
I would say Holland’s “approach and tone” is the problem.
Just sayin…..
I think the idea that people need to ask permission (get a licence) from the government to marry each other needs to become obsolete. With so much darkness and ugliness in the world, if two (or more for that matter) adults love each other and want to make a commitment…they should be supported in that.
I looked it over and don’t see a problem at all. We’re here for a short time and I, for one, want all the information I can get. I don’t think there is a problem with websites putting a negative spin on our history. Just the facts take care of that
😆 For goodness sakes folks, we live in an age where the most famous recent public proclamation to the world by our “prophet” was “one, two, three…let’s go shopping”. We probably need to develop the ability to laugh at ourselves here.
Just sayin….
I would have to say that there are images available that would do a world of good toward being honest about the way the BOM was “translated”. For instance
>>Can’t you just see this picture in an Ensign?
It absolutely has nothing to do with dangling the carrot called the TR. 😆 What other corporation is able to collect revenue by threatening someone’s status in the next life?
And, of course, the Lord doesn’t need the money….paying tithing is for the individual….obedience is a good thing.
:yawn: Personally, I don’t have any interest over the year after meeting my family’s needs, so I simply don’t owe any. I’ll probably sign up for settement this year and tell our little punk branch president that, just to watch his face.
Sometimes this stuff is fun.
