Proclamation, Gay Marriage and Constitutional Amendment

[tooblue]

[QUOTE=hoyacoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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


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."

If you have to ask, maybe you should pay closer attention during conference, or when your bishop reads that letter from the pulpit :-P … Let’s see, I can think of avoid debt; pay a generous fast offering and not merely pay a fast offering; get an education; go on a mission … oh and before you say those aren’t essential to salvation how are they different than say, obey the word of wisdom ... that's the point, they are not different when one considers who is saying these things –a man or prophet!

Again, you are dealing in absolutes here, letter of the law type stuff!

Oh, and I said absolutes were dangerous, not that by speaking them your tongue would shrivel up and become abscessed ;-)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by livecoug

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

I do honor and sustain the prophet. Are you suggesting that by not writing a letter in support of this amendment a person fails to honor and sustain the prophet?

If so, we have a very different definition of honoring and sustaining.

[Cali Coug]

[QUOTE=tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If you have to ask, maybe you should pay closer attention during conference, or when your bishop reads that letter from the pulpit :-P … Let’s see, I can think of avoid debt; pay a generous fast offering and not merely pay a fast offering; get an education; go on a mission … oh and before you say those aren’t essential to salvation how are they different than say, obey the word of wisdom ... that's the point, they are not different when one considers who is saying these things –a man or prophet!

Again, you are dealing in absolutes here, letter of the law type stuff!

Oh, and I said absolutes were dangerous, not that by speaking them your tongue would shrivel up and become abscessed ;-)

The prophet has two missions: provide for the spiritual direction necessary to give us spiritual salvation, and provide guidance for temporal safety and assistance. Sometimes the two work together, sometimes they are distinct.

Avoid debt: please show me how this is essential to my spiritual salvation. It may make me a better tool in the hands of the Lord, but it is hardly required.

Get an education: Please show me how this is essential to spiritual salvation. Again, if you believe that it is, are you suggesting that 3rd world members without an education cannot be saved? I doubt it.

Pay a generous fast offering: Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

Go on a mission: makes us a better tool, not required for salvation (or should Steve Young just quit trying right now?).

In response to tooblue: Repentance: it IS asked. Is there anything in your past which has not been resolved but should have been?

Word of Wisdom: the body is a temple. The Spirit can't operate in an unclean dwelling. We need the Spirit to survive spiritually. Thus, it is different.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

All good and valid points, and all important to remember.

[creekster]

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.

Rhetorically you are right, I went too far, but in the substance I didn't. Everyone that professes belief here clearly accepts that at SOME point the prophet speaks for God. The question then is when does this happen? For you, apprently, unless someone sits you down and says "Hoyacoug, write your senator or else your temple recommend will be taken away" any advice or direction is discretionary. Others, myself included, tend to believe that a letter that is signed by the first presidecny and read over the pulpit worldwide at sacrament meeting requesting action based upon our application and understanding of the proclamation on the Family is a sufficiently clear expression of direction from the prophet to require action regardless what our reasoning may or may not inform our intellect about the topic.

Intelelct cannot be trusted in all things. I, and I am speaking only for myself, trust the prophet to see the future, to guide the church and to inform me about the Lord's will. I do not find those of you that disagree with me to be stupid or wrong, but you just don't follow the same path that I choose to follow.

You are correct again that you are ALWAYS free to ignore the prophet's advice; you are free to ignore commanments as well, shouldyou choose. That's why we are here. If you have reasoned this out, prayed about it sincerely, and are happy about your course, so be it.

[livecoug]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I do honor and sustain the prophet. Are you suggesting that by not writing a letter in support of this amendment a person fails to honor and sustain the prophet?

If so, we have a very different definition of honoring and sustaining.

no, not at all, but you should if you sustain and honor the prophet, shouldn't you believe that what he is saying about the sanctity of marriage is of God? if not, then maybe that isn't honoring and sustaining.. maybe it's honoring and sustaining when i feel like it.. i don't know..

[tooblue]

[QUOTE=hoyacoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The prophet has two missions: provide for the spiritual direction necessary to give us spiritual salvation, and provide guidance for temporal safety and assistance. Sometimes the two work together, sometimes they are distinct.

Avoid debt: please show me how this is essential to my spiritual salvation. It may make me a better tool in the hands of the Lord, but it is hardly required.

Get an education: Please show me how this is essential to spiritual salvation. Again, if you believe that it is, are you suggesting that 3rd world members without an education cannot be saved? I doubt it.

Pay a generous fast offering: Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

Go on a mission: makes us a better tool, not required for salvation (or should Steve Young just quit trying right now?).

In response to tooblue: Repentance: it IS asked. Is there anything in your past which has not been resolved but should have been?

Word of Wisdom: the body is a temple. The Spirit can't operate in an unclean dwelling. We need the Spirit to survive spiritually. Thus, it is different.

Do I really have to answer with the pat Sunday school stories of the individuals that failed to manage debt, get an education etc. who suffered miserable lives and struggled to over come their bitterness and cynicism and never quite realized their potential as an instrument in the Lords hands … how might such a scenario affect their salvation?

And maybe Steve Young will serve a mission? And maybe all those people in the spirit world who did not obey or even hear of the word of wisdom have a legit shot at salvation?

The word of wisdom is about obedience ... in fact this whole discussion is about obedience ;-) In others words, our willingness to obey the LORD and not merely the prophet … therefore the issue may very well be essential to salvation.

[Archaea]

Despite the many discussions here, this issue perplexes me.

Creekster is correct in identifying hoya's correct description of his legal right to ignore anything the prophet may say.

Under hoya's extremely narrow construction, unless it's a temple question, the prophet is apparently blowing through his nose, as far as hoya is concerned.

In one respect, I can understand the simplicity of it; there's very little instruction one needs to listen to, if we take that approach and the Church is mostly just a social/service club in that respect.

Perhaps, in our efforts to discover the correct history of the Church, we see so many of the errors, it actually undermines our faith in any aspect of the organization, except the bare minimum.

As far as the current is defined, I fail to see how our more gay friendly members view this.

Mike has a brother who is gay as does SoCal. Apparently, this shades their thinking on the issue. I'm not certain what to think, but have articulated what intellectually makes sense to me in the past. The arguments of Mike, SoCal and Hoya all appear to be emotional.

And here's the crux, when a disagreement with the First Presidency over an issue becomes emotional to the point that one wants to openly oppose the First Presidency, I would hope in such an instance I would do it after much fasting and prayer.

Unlike those three, I have no vested interest. Other than a friend who's disappeared, I really have no close relative or associate who was active LDS and thereafter faced the issue. Even I did, it is an issue that I couldn't understand, as it runs counter to the very fiber of my being. OTH, I'm not a very emotional person, meaing, I try to run counter to my emotional instincts and to do what my intellect tells me.

The First Presidency might be in error, not that I believe it, but if they are, then I can see no logical reason to believe there is a God.

If the First Presidency can't even get our origins right, whether God has any opinion on genders, then they can't get anything correct, and there is no God.

None of the other religions get much right, and if the LDS Church has no connection to divinity, then let hedonism and self-interest rule the day. Anarchy would be preferable IMHO.

Perhaps the First Presidency is advocating something that will ultimately fail, and we will become a nation of self-indulgent hedonists, but because our leadership is not trained in this area, doesn't mean some of their advice, especially if it is after consultation with their ultimate leader, cannot be inspired.

Here may be another way of examing whether the recommendation is inspired.

Conjure an alternative to what they are proposing that feels inspired.

Let's see; all the scriptures condemning acts of homosexuality are wrong, simply vestiges of a worn out tradition of Jewish paternalism. We now advocate two people, adults who seek legal union may pursue whatever sexual desires they have and this is of God.

Does that feel or sound inspired?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Rhetorically you are right, I went too far, but in the substance I didn't. Everyone that professes belief here clearly accepts that at SOME point the prophet speaks for God. The question then is when does this happen? For you, apprently, unless someone sits you down and says "Hoyacoug, write your senator or else your temple recommend will be taken away" any advice or direction is discretionary. Others, myself included, tend to believe that a letter that is signed by the first presidecny and read over the pulpit worldwide at sacrament meeting requesting action based upon our application and understanding of the proclamation on the Family is a sufficiently clear expression of direction from the prophet to require action regardless what our reasoning may or may not inform our intellect about the topic.

Intelelct cannot be trusted in all things. I, and I am speaking only for myself, trust the prophet to see the future, to guide the church and to inform me about the Lord's will. I do not find those of you that disagree with me to be stupid or wrong, but you just don't follow the same path that I choose to follow.

You are correct again that you are ALWAYS free to ignore the prophet's advice; you are free to ignore commanments as well, shouldyou choose. That's why we are here. If you have reasoned this out, prayed about it sincerely, and are happy about your course, so be it.

Again you are overstating things here. First of all, your description of the letter is off. It wasn't read worldwide. It was read inside the US. It hasn't been equally applied to every country or to every member (also a good indication it isn't vital to our salvation).

As for the temple recommend, yes, I view it as a benchmark of how I am doing. If I am worthy to enter the temple here (which is the closest we can come to mimicking the Celestial Kingdom) then I feel pretty good about my chances. The question I ask isn't, "will they take the recommend away" but rather, "will I continue to be able to truthfully answer each question and still get a recommend." Here, I feel good saying yes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Despite the many discussions here, this issue perplexes me.

Creekster is correct in identifying hoya's correct description of his legal right to ignore anything the prophet may say.

Under hoya's extremely narrow construction, unless it's a temple question, the prophet is apparently blowing through his nose, as far as hoya is concerned.

In one respect, I can understand the simplicity of it; there's very little instruction one needs to listen to, if we take that approach and the Church is mostly just a social/service club in that respect.

Perhaps, in our efforts to discover the correct history of the Church, we see so many of the errors, it actually undermines our faith in any aspect of the organization, except the bare minimum.

As far as the current is defined, I fail to see how our more gay friendly members view this.

Mike has a brother who is gay as does SoCal. Apparently, this shades their thinking on the issue. I'm not certain what to think, but have articulated what intellectually makes sense to me in the past. The arguments of Mike, SoCal and Hoya all appear to be emotional.

And here's the crux, when a disagreement with the First Presidency over an issue becomes emotional to the point that one wants to openly oppose the First Presidency, I would hope in such an instance I would do it after much fasting and prayer.

Unlike those three, I have no vested interest. Other than a friend who's disappeared, I really have no close relative or associate who was active LDS and thereafter faced the issue. Even I did, it is an issue that I couldn't understand, as it runs counter to the very fiber of my being. OTH, I'm not a very emotional person, meaing, I try to run counter to my emotional instincts and to do what my intellect tells me.

The First Presidency might be in error, not that I believe it, but if they are, then I can see no logical reason to believe there is a God.

If the First Presidency can't even get our origins right, whether God has any opinion on genders, then they can't get anything correct, and there is no God.

None of the other religions get much right, and if the LDS Church has no connection to divinity, then let hedonism and self-interest rule the day. Anarchy would be preferable IMHO.

Perhaps the First Presidency is advocating something that will ultimately fail, and we will become a nation of self-indulgent hedonists, but because our leadership is not trained in this area, doesn't mean some of their advice, especially if it is after consultation with their ultimate leader, cannot be inspired.

Here may be another way of examing whether the recommendation is inspired.

Conjure an alternative to what they are proposing that feels inspired.

Let's see; all the scriptures condemning acts of homosexuality are wrong, simply vestiges of a worn out tradition of Jewish paternalism. We now advocate two people, adults who seek legal union may pursue whatever sexual desires they have and this is of God.

Does that feel or sound inspired?

WOW- WHERE did you get that??? I truly don't know where to start with this post.

First of all, exactly what is my "vested interest" here?

Have you paused to think that you are perhaps reacting emotionally to rational arguments?

Let me just go through a few of the arguments I have with what you said:

Originally Posted by archaea

The First Presidency might be in error, not that I believe it, but if they are, then I can see no logical reason to believe there is a God."

Are you claiming that the First Presidency MUST be infallible or there isn't a God? Did you miss the MANY instances in the Old and New Testament where a representative of the Lord was wrong? Did God cease to exist??? How about in modern times? Are you suggesting the church has never been wrong on anything? If so, that is an EXTREMELY bold statement, one that could, rationally, only mean that you are: a) now an atheist; or b) blissfully ignorant of church history and errors committed by church leaders past and present.

How would you reconcile your statement with those by prophets saying they are NOT infallible?

Originally Posted by archea

If the First Presidency can't even get our origins right, whether God has any opinion on genders, then they can't get anything correct, and there is no God.

You are mixing up all kinds of debates here. The current debate has nothing to do with what you just wrote. While I am confident the First Presidency does understand our origins, it doesn't logically follow that we must adopt a constitutional amendment defining an issue related to those origins. Or are you suggesting that any eternal principle must be legislated politically?

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's see; all the scriptures condemning acts of homosexuality are wrong, simply vestiges of a worn out tradition of Jewish paternalism. We now advocate two people, adults who seek legal union may pursue whatever sexual desires they have and this is of God.

Where are you coming up with this??? Nobody is saying we are to redefine what God thinks of immoral acts. What we are saying is that it isn't the role of the US government to define those acts (which is what the letter is asking us to promote). Stick with the issue here. The alternative proposal you are asking for would be to continue to allow religion to promote its message while leaving government out of it.

Originally Posted by archea

And here's the crux, when a disagreement with the First Presidency over an issue becomes emotional to the point that one wants to openly oppose the First Presidency, I would hope in such an instance I would do it after much fasting and prayer.

This is illogical, especially given your previous statement that if the First Presidency is wrong, then there is no God. Here you say they can be wrong, but you would only disagree with them openly after you confirmed things with God (who shouldn't be existing at this point, given they were wrong).

Also, HOW is refusing to write our representative "open opposition" to the First Presidency? It is inaction that nobody even knows about. Not very open, if you ask me.