I've thought long and hard about Prop. 8

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

BDB's post raises another issue altogether.....I guess there is the notion that as members of the Church, we have promised to simply obey all Church leaders. Or perhaps the important ones? I don't know....we sustain all our leaders...so when a crazy EQP calls you up and asks you to help move, you are backing out of a promise if you choose to not help move?

I do not necessarily lump BDB into that group...or even imply that BDB is part of that camp. In fairness, she has not had a chance to clarify, so I do not want to cast her comments in a false light. Just saying that her post raises the interesting issue.

This is my opinion. I believe that when you sustain the church leaders, that's your chance to decide whether or not you're going to follow his counsel. You don't have the option of picking and choosing after that. I will also venture to say that the same stands for local leaders, so long as they are not opposition to the general church leadership.

I don't believe in selectively sustaining church leadership. If that's the way it works, why even bother sustaining them at all? What would be the point? I never raised my hand to sustain them with the idea that I was only going to support church leadership when I feel like it, or only so long as they do things my way.

Everybody screws up, but you should at least do your best to minimize the screw ups, and I'm doing my best.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

This is my opinion. I believe that when you sustain the church leaders, that's your chance to decide whether or not you're going to follow his counsel. You don't have the option of picking and choosing after that. I will also venture to say that the same stands for local leaders, so long as they are not opposition to the general church leadership.

I don't believe in selectively sustaining church leadership. If that's the way it works, why even bother sustaining them at all? What would be the point? I never raised my hand to sustain them with the idea that I was only going to support church leadership when I feel like it, or only so long as they do things my way.

Everybody screws up, but you should at least do your best to minimize the screw ups, and I'm doing my best.

Bingo!!!

You get it, unfortunately there are meny in here who don't.

Just as GBH said in your quote above, there is no room for gray areas in the Lords church, it's all black or white, either you are for God or you are against him. God is the one who has said that Homosexuality is an abomination, now man says that God is wrong.

Slippery slope trying to compare this to the LDS stance long ago on blacks, I can't seem to recall the good books telling us that God is against black people, yet there it is written about homosexuality being wrong.

Hate the sin not the sinner, and not allowing sinners to get a strangle hold on society is not about hating them, just not tolerating their actions, and letting them be given equal stature to Gods eternal plan for families.

Flame away but if you truly sustain the brethren in SLC you know that what they are saying is true concering this matter, and that Gods house is an house of order.

[YOhio]

I did not like the old man [Elder Pelatiah Brown] being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 5:3

[OrangeUte]

Sorry, but I just don't buy off on this argument that sustaining leaders equals unequivacal obedience to their direction. Joseph Smith even said teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves. It is up to me to discern whether to follow counsel or not.

I would not have followed the counsel re: ERA, and I will not follow the counsel here. It isn't my responsibility to follow and hope that the church isn't wrong, but feel safe because I know if they are wrong, then the church's PR machine will clean up the mess. No, I will exercise my own discretion.

[Gidget]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

Sorry, but I just don't buy off on this argument that sustaining leaders equals unequivacal obedience to their direction. Joseph Smith even said teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves. It is up to me to discern whether to follow counsel or not.

I would not have followed the counsel re: ERA, and I will not follow the counsel here. It isn't my responsibility to follow and hope that the church isn't wrong, but feel safe because I know if they are wrong, then the church's PR machine will clean up the mess. No, I will exercise my own discretion.

Agreed, I don't feel like exercising my free agency will be the worst thing I face come judgment day. Anyway, does anyone know what would happen (course of action taken) if someone raises their hand in opposition to a sustaining?

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Bingo!!!

You get it, unfortunately there are meny in here who don't.

Just as GBH said in your quote above, there is no room for gray areas in the Lords church, it's all black or white, either you are for God or you are against him. God is the one who has said that Homosexuality is an abomination, now man says that God is wrong.

Slippery slope trying to compare this to the LDS stance long ago on blacks, I can't seem to recall the good books telling us that God is against black people, yet there it is written about homosexuality being wrong.

Hate the sin not the sinner, and not allowing sinners to get a strangle hold on society is not about hating them, just not tolerating their actions, and letting them be given equal stature to Gods eternal plan for families.

Flame away but if you truly sustain the brethren in SLC you know that what they are saying is true concering this matter, and that Gods house is an house of order.

I didn't know that gays were being given equal stature by the government in the plan of salvation. This is where you miss the point. Nobody is saying that the church has to sanction and perform gay temple sealings, but that seems to be the argument that you are making - i.e. That is the next step in this decline towards sodom and gomorah that prop 8 represents.

Again,no good reason given how this impacts the safety and sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

I'm not following along with what the church is asking, and frankly I expect to not be considered disloyal for exercising that discretion.

By the way, the history of the church quote above is superb.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

Seems to me that the church can tell me that in order to belong as a member i have to believe in (1) the divinity of Jesus Christ; and (2) that priesthood power was restored, including keys of continuing revelation, through joseph smith. Other than that, i don't see what the church can tell me i have to believe exactly. Obviously, the church can discipline and revoke membership where conduct is not in keeping with church teachings, or is harmful to the image of the church, etc (i have no problem with that). however, that the church, or its members, would expect me to believe in anything other than (1) or (2), just because the leaders that i support and sustain say so, is offensive to me as a man of "accomplishment" and "intellect" that the church seems so happy to have in its membership roles as long as they are followers of what is expected.

You believe these things because you are not insane.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I believe that when you sustain the church leaders, that's your chance to decide whether or not you're going to follow his counsel. You don't have the option of picking and choosing after that.

Yikes. I lose the option of choosing for myself?

No thanks.

That plan sounds vaguely familiar......and surely I will do it...that one soul shall not be lost....

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

Sorry, but I just don't buy off on this argument that sustaining leaders equals unequivacal obedience to their direction. Joseph Smith even said teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves. It is up to me to discern whether to follow counsel or not.

I would not have followed the counsel re: ERA, and I will not follow the counsel here. It isn't my responsibility to follow and hope that the church isn't wrong, but feel safe because I know if they are wrong, then the church's PR machine will clean up the mess. No, I will exercise my own discretion.

You are, of course, correct. I'm tempted to do one of my posts where I list Church leader after Church leader who speaks against the nonsense that to sustain means to agree with.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

This is my opinion. I believe that when you sustain the church leaders, that's your chance to decide whether or not you're going to follow his counsel. You don't have the option of picking and choosing after that. I will also venture to say that the same stands for local leaders, so long as they are not opposition to the general church leadership.

I don't believe in selectively sustaining church leadership. If that's the way it works, why even bother sustaining them at all? What would be the point? I never raised my hand to sustain them with the idea that I was only going to support church leadership when I feel like it, or only so long as they do things my way.

Everybody screws up, but you should at least do your best to minimize the screw ups, and I'm doing my best.

Wow. Just wow.