Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, since I’m one of those wacky old historicity-believing types, I think the war stuff is there….well….because that’s the records the writers chose to keep. For those who view the BoM as something different, I’m not sure why the moral lessons and records would be war-oriented unless it’s just to illustrate peoples/societies” violent natures when they start being secular.
Rix wrote: “I see this issue as the next “blacks and the priesthood” transition.”
Yep…I has to be. Right before the “women in the priesthood” transition.
I fully understand what you are saying Rix and honestly try to empathize with these people. To answer your question…if I was in an alternate universe where God advocates homosexual behavior and condemns heterosexual acts then I should refrain from acting on my inclinations. No, I wouldn’t feel I was “wrong” for having the feelings…just wrong if I acted on them.
Before I was married I certainly had “feelings” that made me desire pre-marital sex…I assume most everyone does….If I acted on them, however, it was/would-have-been wrong.
It is a tough burden for these folks to bear, I’m sure. We should continue trying to understand and praying for them. However, I don’t believe that accepting behavior that God has clearly labeled as wrong is the correct answer.
My opinion only of course….
This is such a challenge for SSA individuals as well as their families. There have been numerous studies that show biological propensities to do a lot of things, some even criminal. IMHO, that does not excuse acting upon it. We all have different “crosses to bear” and I feel the Church has taken a more-than-fair position on it that doesn’t need any further “caving in”. No one is criticizing anyone for being gay, for having SSA, or for the way the individual feels….these people are our brothers and sisters and children of our heavenly father. However, when they choose to act upon these inclinations, then they are doing wrong and there is no need for the Church to be any more tolerant of these acts than there is to become more tolerant of pre-marital heterosexual sex.
Wrong is wrong. There is no gray area in this situation.
My opinion only of course…
promom, That is a tough situation. Dealing with inactive family members/friends is one thing but angry/bitter is another….especially if their anger is to the point of telling you that you are wrong for continuing to believe that which they have chosen to reject. I would say that you would have to draw a boundary about what you are willing to continually listen to from them. If they want you to hear their opinion…fine…but once is enough IMHO.
Love em…pray for em…but I wouldn’t allow them to drag you down to their present state. Best of luck.
I see evil as laziness and sin, therefore, are all the results of laziness. I don’t pretend to be that insightful…I borrowed the idea from Scott Peck (the Road Less Traveled)
Any intentional sin that I can think of is a result of an unwillingness to do the right thing or acquire something in the proper manner (laziness)
Unintentional sins or sins of omission are a result of the same thing.
It’s a bit of a different concept that is sure to put a guilt trip on us couch potatoes
(and don’t let me even start on the implications this has on kids playing video games instead of doing something constructive…..but then again…..I’m sitting here blogging…)
Are any of us, most fundamentalists included, really ready to live like the Hutterittes? Secularism is, for the lack of a better term, a lot of fun.
I like the idea of my kids going to college so they can earn a better-than-average income. I like working hard so I can get a nicer car, a nicer house, skinnier tv, etc. I know the handicapped lady next door lives on about $700.00 per month disability but I really don’t want to think about that…I want to take my wife out to eat. I must admit that personal property is a millstone for me.
When I look at it that way and study the way the Hutterittes live….bring on the 10%
It creates a bit of cognitive dissonance on my part because I absolutely believe this is the way we are supposed to be working toward living. For the folks I know that live it, it’s not always easy. I don’t think any of us will inherit any kingdom we’re not ready for though….in other words, we don’t get to a celestial kingdom by living terrestial laws.
The simple practice of tithing certainly sets us on the way toward living higher laws though, IMHO. True, it is a lot harder on low income folks. I think everyone should follow their conscience on the matter.
This is a good link that pretty much sums up what I have always been taught regarding the Church of the Firstborn. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Church_of_the_Firstborn Of course there have been several secular, and at least two LDS movements using the name (LeBarons and Morrisites), but the Church of the Firstborn is actually a heavenly organization. As I understand the only way a person can consider themselves a member would be to have their second annointing (their calling and election made sure).
Oops..I was a little slow to re-edit my edit. Anyway, regarding Quinn…you just don’t throw out some sick “hint and run” innuendo like:
“the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith enjoyed bedtime snuggling with male friends throughout his life” (p. 87).
…and expect people to not challenge you on it. (well, maybe you can but don’t expect me not to challenge you on it) We all know that men have slept together for centuries due to limited sleeping facilities. That does not mean what “sleeping together” means today. Throwing the word “snuggling” in there is just one example of his constant striving to justify his homosexual agenda.
“Bruce, who is F. Collier? Is this the same Fred Collier that Timpanogas wrote about in his introduction who ended up going polygamist/fundamentalist?” Yes, that’s the same Fred Collier. He’s an independent fundamentalist that I disagree with on a lot of things, but I find him “dead on” in his letter to Quinn. (obviously, in opposition to everyone else here
Mister Currie, with respect, you mention that Mr. Collier’s letter was not unbiased…well, no….It wasn’t intended to be. It is blatantly accusing him of writing biased fiction and calling it history. Collier is calling him to the mat on his facts.
With respect to everyone, I submit that the only way to find out is to actually investigate some of Quinn’s cited sources and see for ourselves. I’ll go back when I have some time and recheck on some things. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong…but on this guy…I don’t think so.
Edit:
Rix said “I’m a real fan of Quinn. I’m quite ashamed that so many in the church have highlighted his homosexuality instead of his scholarship; as if somehow his sexual preference diminishes his ability to research and write well????
Are you familiar with the document “Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example “?
This is a textbook example, IMHO, of how not to write a “historical” document. His “hint and run” style would get a D- from most any junior college English instuctor.
It’s addressed here quite well:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=10&num=1&id=280 With respect Rix, he brought the highlightening (is that a word?
I guess I’ve gotten off the subject of this book and on the subject of the author. They are kinda hard to separate though.
Thanks for sharing that with us. I know how difficult it can all be. Personally, I’ve come full circle….from TBM…to doubt and disbelief….to apostacy….and back to be a sort of TBM on steroids.
The BoA was a stumbling block for me that I now embrace…and, no, I didn’t just find an apologetics view that would work and shut out all secular reasoning. It took a while but I fully believe that the BoA is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
That’s just me but I hope you don’t just throw in the towel….there is more to this situation than meets the eye at first IMHO.
The fundamentalists that I associate with practice a form of a United Order, albeit rather watered down. They are trying, however, and strive to do better all the time. Tithing is still the economic base for the priesthood work though. An interesting example of how a united order might function properly, IMHO, can be found among an Anabaptist group called the Hutterites. There are many here in the West and they seem to pull it off pretty good. I’ve never known any personally but from the ones that I have met and see in public, they seem like healthy, happy folks. From what I have read on the internet about them, their economic system seems very close to what we would call the Law of Consecration. I don’t know if they tithe as well but I’m going to guess, no.
EDIT…
I know, I know….
There is a knee jerk reaction that seems to be inherent in us Mormon-types that cringes at the thought that some other group might actually be living a gospel principle better than we are.
I would like to respectfully submit that the problem with tithing is not tithing, the problem is that us darn Mormons are not living the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Certainly, as long as there continue to be rich and poor among us then there will continue to be problems like this.
When we all progress to the point that we’re living the higher laws and have lost/conquered our selfishness, then tithing will not be a hardship on anyone. Until then, there will be these extreme social inequalities.
Fundamentalist ramblings…
Disregard at will…
Usual disclaimers…
Yada, yada…
Since this thread addresses the pre-existence, here’s a link that some might appreciate …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6y-WTFGPK4&feature=related There are actually 4 or 5 ten-minute videos that you have to watch to get the whole thing but it’s Terryl Givens in 2007.
Good stuff IMHO.
