Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks guys and gals! What you have said reaffirmed what I personally believe, now I guess I just need to practice my delivery of my beliefs. Oh well.
I also posted a similar, more generalized until I got some information though, to my Facebook account to see what my other mormon friends would say. It seems I’m in good company there. Most agreed with me, though it was more general. I just put in the specifics about marriage and allowing any type of marriage. It will be interesting to see if anyone replies and what they say. I know my non-mormon and less active/disheartened mormons will reply to my facebook post.
Again, from the few posts here, I am happy with my resolve to continue to fight for what is right…. even though I completely disagree with the idea.
As for the church ideals, I feel that any private organization can choose to allow/disallow, include/exclude, marry, and charge/not-charge their membership as they please (just to name a few). This means if the church says no to gay marriages by bishops or in the temple, that is OK they have that right. Government on the other hand shouldn’t have that right. I also believe membership can petition the church to change its policies and if it doesn’t the member or church can terminate the relationship at will.
Anyway, thank you for your input!
Heber13 wrote:I don’t think it is really a double standard. Double standards are the same thing being applied differently to one person and not another. Like if we both drove 61mph and I get a ticket and you don’t. That’s a double standard.
But saying the church teaches the WoW but it is not law, and teaches for heterosexual marriage and wants it to be law…those are different standards.
We could agree that selling alcohol is legal, but selling heroine is not. That’s not a double standard because alcohol and heroine are not equal.
Ah – I think based on this description, I was not explaining myself very well to this other person.
For clarification, I do not believe government should be in the business of marriage. There are ways to offer the same tax benefits without having to regulate (license = regulation) marriage.
I also believe drugs shouldn’t be illegal. I am for a society that allows people to choose their own path. The path just can’t infringe on others rights, which, leads into the whole what infringes and what does not. I know, it is a mess on what is and is not an infringement.
For this thread, I just don’t see how gay marriage infringes on anothers rights, therefore in my brain, I don’t see why any church should push for laws that restrict it.
Oh – and thanks for letting me stay on the board…
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Hear me out now before you retort on me and ban me from the board . . . I know that this board will straighten me out pretty quickly.
[
Admin Note: We don’t ban people for having different views, as long as there is respect in how those views are presented and for differing views. We also aren’t in the business of straightening out people, except when demonstrably false claims are made or when our rule lines are crossed. Also, this has the potential to be an explosive discussion. I don’t think it will be, since we’ve discussed it civilly in the past, but let’s keep that in mind and be respectful.]
Thanks. I promise to stay absolutely civil.
I may have created on years ago when it first came out. I don’t remember where it is, what is on it, or anything like that. old data fursure. I liked your reply! Mine would have been similar, only more directed at the offender. Would have been something similar to: Oh, Sorry, do you want me to close the door on you?
But then again, probably wouldn’t catch me holding the door for very long anyway. I would have caught the next guy’s eye, then glanced at the door, then back and let the door go. This is the universal sign of “I’m letting go, so do something about it”.
Roy wrote:Just to be clear. It seems that immodesty is a women only issue. I have never in my life been told that I’m dressing immodestly. Leering at women appears to be the male side of the coin. So… women are asked to help control the problem by covering up and men are counseled to control their eyes and their minds. Does that sound about right?
That is the general idea……That I disagree with…….
I think men have to dress modestly as well. I’ve seen the leers from YM to the YM when they come with their t-tops or are playing basketball with their shirts off. It isn’t addressed as much with YM, but it still needs to be addressed.
hah hah hah… This is great! So, I’ve been 2nd counselor in the YM before. When I would see a YM dressed inappropriately at church, I would look at the Deacons. If their eyes drifted, I knew what to do at priesthood. I would hit the subject head on. There was only one way to take on the subject of where they eyes are to go. I would explain how hard it is, how hard it will always be, and what to do about it. I never talked about the actual girl and I explained that if they did see someone dressed inappropriately to not point it out. Just keep their eyes up and move on. I have no idea of it really helped …. but that is what I did.
SilentDawning wrote:Do you think this “serve where placed” model creates more good in terms of personal growth and acheiving the church’s mission simultenaously than an approach that provides more choice on the part of the callee? (I realize we have a choice to say Yes or no, but I think most would agree it creates a stigma if you say “no” too often or at all for certain callings. I’m talking about more choice about where to be called before a call is extended).
Oh, I see. I’m not sure how much “choice” we have in being offered a calling. That is up to the leadership.I do think you can influence it. I have by stating very clearly that I will only work with the Boy Scouts (Pack, Troop, Crew, Team). This helps them to know what calling I will accept and to not even think about others.
In another thread it is talking about “inspiration”… Well – I “inspire” them to the calling that I will serve.
Church = yes … same as everyone above has said. Me = Hell No! I accept and deny callings as I see fit. When I accept them, I follow the rules that are written. If it ain’t written, it ain’t a rule. For example: The 11-yr old scouts has a rule regarding 3 camp outs a year. Most interpret that to 3 campouts in the boys’ year. What do I say – nope, 3 campouts in a year. So if I plan the campouts right, I can get 4-5 for each boy before they are 12. Some only get 3, but most will get the 4-5. I figure out what “my year” is going to be by looking at the boys in/out dates. Then I plan the campouts so that there are only “3 in that year” for that boy. 2013 will only have 3 campouts, and 2014 will have 3 campouts for that boy. Make sense? It is within the “rules”, but also gets the boys out camping. That is generally what they want to do anyway.
So I’ll repeat that “serve where placed” is a no go for me personally.
I have a friend who was raised very mormon. He started to drink and went off the deep end with it. It got really bad. Do you know who saved him? It wasn’t his mormon friends. …(disclaimer, I was across the country and didn’t know he was having problems)… It was his friend from work who knew how and what to do when drinking. He saved him. He took him in and helped him understand his limits. My friend hasn’t returned to the mormon church. He attends the catholic church now. I was talking to him and he was kind of offish until I asked him if he was happy. He grinned from ear to ear and said yes. I said good! Keep going to the catholic church. He opened up and told me all about his life and how he got there. It was very interesting. He is happy and I am happy for him. That said, my recommendation is to help your husband. If you fight him, he may end up in the dumps. If this friend is responsible, make sure the friend knows to teach him what to do and not do, when to stop etc.
There is my libertarian coming out. let people do what they want as long as it is not harming others.
My 2 cents ….
{my disclaimer: my advice is worth as much as you pay}
Roy wrote:Good points Ray. There are no easy answers. How about we just pay the janitor and call it good?
Agreed! I do not like cleaning the church.SilentDawning wrote:I can accept the argument that priestcraft is ministering for personal fame and glory, and involves a business model.
Now, I have a follow-up question. Although Bishops and SP’s are part-time, they give a huge amount of time to the church and have responsibilities for essentially, a little “Company” of about 500 people. That is 3 times larger than a $27 Million dollar company I worked for earlier in my career, in terms of employees.
Why then are they not paid if priestcraft only involves seeking fame and adulation and wealth out of religious charisma? What is the logic behind this when being a Bishop is so demanding, and often members suffer due to the lack of attention these part-time, volunteer Bishops dedicate?
I am curious what you think.
I understand where/how you are wondering about the pay for bishops and stake presidents.
That said, I don’t think money will help. I mean, it will help, but it is more the time aspect that causes bishops and stake presidents hardships on them and their families.
And with that said (I like that statement), having a little bit extra will help ease the emotional part of being away from family.
SilentDawning wrote:As my wife and I watched his talk, she rewound a part to ask me if I heard it. He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid. This has been a bit of a standing debate among people in my Ward during certain lessons. His qualifying statement implies that the people at the top are paid.
Not that I’m questioning that decision (to pay top leaders), but that finally, there is an implicit admission that people above local leaders receive pay for their service.
I don’t want to spend the time to find where it was said, but I remember from my youth a GA saying that GA’s and the presidency receive a stipend. He said stipend. Now, there is no knowing how much a stipend is or where it came from. I always thought everyone knew that GAs and the presidency received money for their time.
