05-30-2006, 04:24 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
[QUOTE=hoyacoug]
Quote:
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 ;-) Last edited by tooblue; 05-30-2006 at 04:27 PM. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:37 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:42 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
[QUOTE=tooblue]
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:44 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
All good and valid points, and all important to remember. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:51 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:57 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,176
|
Quote:
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.. |
|
05-30-2006, 04:58 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
[QUOTE=hoyacoug]
Quote:
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. Last edited by tooblue; 05-30-2006 at 05:08 PM. |
|
05-30-2006, 05:13 PM | #28 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
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?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
05-30-2006, 05:16 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2006, 05:29 PM | #30 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
How would you reconcile your statement with those by prophets saying they are NOT infallible? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
Bookmarks |
|
|