Proclamation, Gay Marriage and Constitutional Amendment

[Robin]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Maybe, just maybe the decision to set aside the practice of polygamy really had more to do with obeying the will of the Lord and less to do with the persecution suffered.

Then perhaps we could let go of this whole notion of hypocrasy ... There is nothing hypocritical in obeying the will of the Lord.

Sounds like the Lord of realpolitik.

[creekster]

fundamentally thid comes down to whether you see the 'church' as a social club or whether you see it as led by a prophet of God. At least, to me, that seems to be how the analysis is breaking in this discussion.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

However, there is something hypocritical about arguing that polygamists shouldn't be imprisoned, and then later when you no longer practice polygamy, argue that polygamists should indeed be in prison.

Yes, I've heard the counter argument. Polygamy wasn't originally illegal, now it is. And on further examination, the same person will admit there was a "gray period" where the church was not obeying the law. And then the argument ends when the person says "yes there may be some hypocrisy, but I don't see how talking about it is useful."

And that is where all brain function ceases.

You can discuss it with me till you are blue in the face ... it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing hypocritical in obeying the will of the Lord.

You may continue to manufacture hypocrasy, I choose to move on.

[tooblue]

Oh now, manufacturing conspiracies and even demons is the work authors ... their purpose is money!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

fundamentally thid comes down to whether you see the 'church' as a social club or whether you see it as led by a prophet of God. At least, to me, that seems to be how the analysis is breaking in this discussion.

You are going way too far here. Your statement implies that anyone who doesn't write their federal representative on this issue views the church as a social club that is not led by a prophet.

I think you need to re-read many of the comments posted here thus far. I cannot pretend to speak for any others, but in my view, the church is led by a prophet, and I will follow the prophet when he speaks about matters important to my salvation. When he speaks about political mattters that are clearly not important to my salvation (if they were, this would be a temple recommend question and EVERY church member would be asked to write their representatives in every country asking for a constitutional amendment (or its equivalent wherever they live) I feel free to listen to what he says and come to a different conclusion.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you need to re-read many of the comments posted here thus far. I cannot pretend to speak for any others, but in my view, the church is led by a prophet, and I will follow the prophet when he speaks about matters important to my salvation. When he speaks about political mattters that are clearly not important to my salvation (if they were, this would be a temple recommend question and EVERY church member would be asked to write their representatives in every country asking for a constitutional amendment (or its equivalent wherever they live) I feel free to listen to what he says and come to a different conclusion.

You are speaking in absolutes, absolutes are dangerous ... furthermore there are many councils given outside the temple recommend questions that are essential to your salvation ... in fact all those spoken by the prophet when he is acting as the voice of the Lord!

I guess the only thing you can do is discern for yourself whether or not in this instance he is speaking as the voice of the Lord. Then it is no longer an issue of willingness to obey the prophet but a willingness to obey the Lord.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are speaking in absolutes, absolutes are dangerous ...

Is that an absolute statement about absolutes being dangerous?




I would ask for a few examples of councils outside of the temple recommend questions that are "essential for my salvation."

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are going way too far here. Your statement implies that anyone who doesn't write their federal representative on this issue views the church as a social club that is not led by a prophet.

I think you need to re-read many of the comments posted here thus far. I cannot pretend to speak for any others, but in my view, the church is led by a prophet, and I will follow the prophet when he speaks about matters important to my salvation. When he speaks about political mattters that are clearly not important to my salvation (if they were, this would be a temple recommend question and EVERY church member would be asked to write their representatives in every country asking for a constitutional amendment (or its equivalent wherever they live) I feel free to listen to what he says and come to a different conclusion.

I know I've already said this until I am blue in the face, but you are a much better man than I am if you can discern when statements the prophet makes which we should listen to and which ones we should ignore. Not saying you can't, just saying I know I can't.

I continue to say, we all get to make whatever choices we want, that is free agency. I also know that it is possible to get so enamored of ones own ability to reason that you can talk yourself out of the need to obey almost anything. I know because I have done it many times. I think when we are cautioned about leaning on the arm of the flesh and our own understandings this is what is being talked about. When we are learned we think we are wise. I'm not saying this about you personally, I'm just saying that when you have well above average intelligence (and you obviously do as do many other around here including, I flatter myself to think, me) there is a very real temptation to believe that your ability to reason is so sharpe that it will always give the answer as to what you should do. Again, I know because this is a fight I fight all the time.

As I said to someone in a boardmail the other day, a point came where I decided that there was a lot that I didn't understand and couldn't reason my way through. At that point I just had to make a choice whether I was going to "go and do" not necessarily understanding why, or whether I was going to murmur. I hope that I do the former more than the latter. I hope that you recieve what I am saying with the spirit I intend it which is mostly FYI. If it doesn't apply to you, forget I said it.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I would ask for a few examples of councils outside of the temple recommend questions that are "essential for my salvation."

How about repentance?

[livecoug]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

(if they were, this would be a temple recommend question and EVERY church member would be asked to write their representatives in every country asking for a constitutional amendment (or its equivalent wherever they live) I feel free to listen to what he says and come to a different conclusion.

It IS part of the temple reccomend interview.. do you honor and sustain the prophet? how is it not?