M4M: Not on theologically or spiritually safe ground

[_bcspace]

M4M = Mormons For Marriage

"Therefore, What?"—A Postscript

A purely academic review would likely end here. Elder Holland has remarked, however, that President Packer's response to instruction or exhortation is often to ask, "Therefore, what?"100 I suspect, then, that President Packer would tell me that as an aspiring disciple of the Master, I have a duty to conclude with my own answer to his question, though unlike him I can speak only for myself.

Therefore—Nonmembers who hope that M4M's stance represents the way of the future, or a viable "alternative interpretation" of the Church of Jesus Christ's attitude toward same-sex acts, should prepare themselves for disappointment. The media should realize that M4M's is a fringe approach unlikely to gain traction among believing, practicing members.

Therefore—M4M's founders ought to either apologize and clean up their conduct online and in the media or be honest enough to concede that their behavior is not consistent with their purported aim to publicly oppose the church's political activities while refraining from criticism of the church and its leaders. It is not clear to me that such a goal is feasible; it is, however, abundantly clear that M4M has failed to achieve it. If they intend to continue as at present, they ought at least to have the decency to admit that they are criticizing the church and its leaders. The issue is simply one of integrity.

I have mentioned Compton specifically because of her leadership role, media prominence, and willingness to forgo anonymity. Others are at least equally at fault.101 By our fruits we are known (Luke 6:43–45). With no more authority than accrues to "fellowcitizens with the saints" (Ephesians 2:19; D&C 20:53–54), I urge all who have erred to repent privately and publicly (Mosiah 27:35; D&C 42:90–92), trusting that God will be as merciful to them in their errors as he is to me in mine. If they choose not to, or insist they have done nothing wrong, the proximate and eternal consequences will be tragic, but not unexpected.

Little intellectual or spiritual respect is due the decision to purchase a courtyard, post a sign that reads "Absolutely No Stoning Will Be Tolerated," and then invite all comers to toss their missiles at apostolic targets under cover of pseudonyms or anonymity. I grow even less sympathetic when in the press the same proprietors then bemoan the sudden epidemic of discord, and piously hope it will end soon—especially, we must add, when they inspect each projectile prior to its launch and are at pains to point out that their "no stoning" policy has prevented the use of some heavier or more jagged weapons.102 Were I to add that the rocks are followed by assurances that Compton and Co. sustain their targets as prophets, seers, and revelators (even without agreeing with them 100 percent), readers might mistake an ironic reality for bad melodrama.103 Would that it were.

Therefore—members of the church ought not to conclude from the existence and misleading rhetoric of the few at M4M that they are on theologically or spiritually safe ground in winking at, encouraging, or engaging in same-sex behavior. Those drawn to M4M ought to seriously ask themselves and the Lord whether they can in good conscience support an organization that has not scrupled to provide a forum to attack apostles, the church, and its doctrines while claiming this will not be the forum's practice. It bears remembering that those who left the tree of life for Lehi's great and spacious building—which represents "the world and the wisdom thereof" and the "vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men" (1 Nephi 11:35; 12:18)—derided their former fellows but could not typically strike at Jesus directly (8:27–28, 33). Instead, they "gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (11:35; see v. 36).

If I were to help stone a man (or hold cloaks while others did so), I hope I would have the gumption to pick up the rock myself and hurl it in the full light of day—and then take the consequences.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=820

[_Shiloh]

I am so thankful we have the Maxwell Institute to tell us what is spiritual and theological "safe ground."

So odd, BC, that you are quoting a non-doctrinal source to support an assertion of doctrine.

Weirdo.

[_bcspace]

So odd, BC, that you are quoting a non-doctrinal source to support an assertion of doctrine.

So you're claiming the article doesn't quote or reference actual doctrine? You're obviously opposed to the conclusion, what is your response to that other than to criticize me for posting it? There are some here who spend a significant portion of their lives attacking MI as if it were the apologetic mouthpiece of the Church, what have you against bringing the battle here for all to see?

[_lulu]

M4M = Mormons For Marriage

M4M = man for man

you been cruising grindr again bcspace?

[_3sheets2thewind]

is there a difference between attacking and Apostle and out-right refusing to follow what the Apostle said?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Why is bcspace so obsessed with homosexuality?

[_lulu]

Why is bcspace so obsessed with homosexuality?

M4M dude, M4M.

[_Bob Loblaw]

M4M dude, M4M.

What I don't understand is why the church sexualizes everything. It's so bizarre and sick.

[_Shiloh]

So you're claiming the article doesn't quote or reference actual doctrine? You're obviously opposed to the conclusion, what is your response to that other than to criticize me for posting it? There are some here who spend a significant portion of their lives attacking MI as if it were the apologetic mouthpiece of the Church, what have you against bringing the battle here for all to see?

How do you know I'm opposed to the conclusion?

I'm genuinely puzzled that you would cite a non doctrinal source to support your position. You are usually such a stickler about sources being "published by the Church."

Of course, your method of defining Mormon Doctrine is akin to modern Quantum Theory. One day, the JoD is doctrine and the next, it isn't. All depends on the perspective of the observer.

Weirdo.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Shiloh, please do not make personal attacks in the Terrestrial Forum. This typically means avoiding calling someone names such as "Weirdo."]