mentalgymnast wrote: And I think we'd agree that they know which way is up and where the wind blows.
Regards, MG
Based on what evidence? These are strangers, leaders of a large corporation. We don't really know them at all. Some of the same guys that came out with the oral sex temple question for married couples.
Remember that one?
Did they decide to have bishops ask married women about oral sex because they were stupid or inspired? didn't they know which way was up and which way the wind blew? It appears they didn't.
They just didn't know so many Sallys were blowing.
mentalgymnast wrote: And I think we'd agree that they know which way is up and where the wind blows.
Regards, MG
Based on what evidence? These are strangers, leaders of a large corporation. We don't really know them at all. Some of the same guys that came out with the oral sex temple question for married couples.
Remember that one?
Did they decide to have bishops ask married women about oral sex because they were stupid or inspired? didn't they know which way was up and which way the wind blew? It appears they didn't.
mentalgymnast wrote:Yes, I remember that. I'm interested, if Dehlin is right, to see what clarifications come out from the brethren in the next little while. I'm sure this is on their 'collective' mind. I'm patient. I'll wait. But I'd like to see some clarification...soon. I, like others, see too much ambiguity in the policy change. The policy was enacted with the premise that Bishops and SP's will rely on the Spirit in their decisions. But then we end up with the human factor and leader roulette issues. Clarification is needed...hopefully on the side of mercy rather than loaded up with justice...to help leaders make decisions that can straddle the line between those two virtues.
And it is a fine line.
I think that we need to remember that at the base of all this, is the fact that the Church sees SSM as being 'sinful' and 'apostate' behavior and that they are having to wrap everything else around that.
Regards, MG
But if Mormon God is perfect, why will his inspired action need to be clarified?
sock puppet wrote:But according to LDS teachings, it might be very important to the salvation of an 8-17 year old child of a gap cohabitating parent.
My dear Sock, we are talking a child influenced by a gay parent here. The infected child would more likely be damned if we went ahead with the ordinances in this life. By saving this dear child for teaching in the spirit prison as we are sure none could really not accept it then. Remember Jesus looked over to the two thieves telling them he would soon be with them in Paradise. What a comfort! What an act of charity and grace!
mentalgymnast wrote:Individuals can be stupid at times. All of us. My query has to do more with a collective body of 15 men who have been honed and challenged throughout their lives in the church. Intelligent churchmen. Each one of them, as an individual, can do something dumb or stupid at times. It's part of being human. But we're talking about all of them...collectively...doing something REALLY stupid, from the point of view of folks that are disgruntled. What is the likelihood of that?
Now, they could ALL be mistaken in their view that they are speaking the mind and will of the Lord in this matter...but then that leads us back to collective stupidity(which is highly unlikely) and/or groupthink based on false premises. I suppose that 'groupthink' could be another option. But then we get into the whole WHY thing again. To line their pockets? To serve God? Etc.
And that becomes a personal decision that each of us has to make.
"Collective stupidity" isn't unlikely--it is expected with groups like the FP + Q12. These guys are structured as if they were purposefully trying to promote groupthink. Why be surprised when it happens?
With regards to why, I would speculate that the basic impulse was boundary maintenance. Now that mainstream accepts same-sex marriage, the church wanted to emphasize that they won't tolerate it. Without thinking about the implications all of the way through, somebody proposed that these families should be treated like polygamous families, groupthink prevented a deeper look at the implications, and it was made the sealed word of God by His appointed leaders before anyone looked at it critically and had the guts to point out the obvious problems and inconsistencies. And now they are painted into a corner.
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
sock puppet wrote:But according to LDS teachings, it might be very important to the salvation of an 8-17 year old child of a gap cohabitating parent.
My dear Sock, we are talking a child influenced by a gay parent here. The infected child would more likely be damned if we went ahead with the ordinances in this life. By saving this dear child for teaching in the spirit prison as we are sure none could really not accept it then. Remember Jesus looked over to the two thieves telling them he would soon be with them in Paradise. What a comfort! What an act of charity and grace!
I wonder then why they want to damn the children of hetero-only parents to being responsible for their own mortality sins, from the age of 8 no less.
mentalgymnast wrote: I think you can put all the spin you want on this...Waterdog and others...but when it comes right down to it you have to use the old saying, "Stupid is, stupid does", as a yardstick. The brethren are not stupid. So then you have to ask yourself, like you are doing, WHY? I think there are only two options when all is taken to the foundational level. They either believe that they have no choice because they think that this policy is the mind and will of God...or they are stupid.
Personally, I think you're still asking the wrong question. You can never know "WHY". Accept it.
The question you need to be asking yourself is "What does MY conscience tell ME?
sock puppet wrote:I wonder then why they want to damn the children of hetero-only parents to being responsible for their own mortality sins, from the age of 8 no less.
I know the Church is true and we have modern Day Prophets and Jesus is the head of this church and I only wish you could feel the spirit with me. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.
I'm patient. I'll wait. But I'd like to see some clarification...soon. I, like others, see too much ambiguity in the policy change. The policy was enacted with the premise that Bishops and SP's will rely on the Spirit in their decisions. But then we end up with the human factor and leader roulette issues. Clarification is needed...hopefully on the side of mercy rather than loaded up with justice...to help leaders make decisions that can straddle the line between those two virtues.