- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Q7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Before I answer the question for myself, I can say that the intent of this question is to determine if the interviewee is affiliating with apostate groups like the FLDS, Utah Lighthouse Ministries, RfM, and the like. I appreciated Shawn’s humor in asking if StayLDS counts (he put a
But when I read the question as the words imply, it’s a poorly worded question, which implies a formal requirement to shun “any…individual whose…practices are contrary to …those accepted by the Church”. This is not bounded to exmos and anti-mormons. It includes EVERYBODY. For Ray’s benefit, I’m going to parse this sentence, using the formal notation of Backus-Naur Form (BNF):
- Do you {support|affiliate with|agree with}
…any {group|individual}
…whose {teachings|practices}
…{are contrary to|oppose} those accepted by the CoJCoLDS?
- a. Do you support any group whose teachings oppose those accepted by the the CoJCoLDS?
b. Do you affiliate with any individual whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the CoJCoLDS?
My answer is NO.
It’s a lie. outright. I have a daughter whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She is a lesbian. She drinks. She smokes. Given that there is no “Marriage” option for her, she has sex outside the bounds of marriage often. Yet I support her. I affiliate with her, as often as I possibly can. Sometimes, I even agree with her. I may not agree with her lifestyle — especially the ‘smoking’ part, but I definitely support AND affiliate with an individual whose practices are contrary to the church. And, because she is technically still on the roles of the church, and it is not my responsibility to “out” someone, I will answer this question is “NO”.
And you know what else? I work with (aka “affiliate with”) lots of gay people, people ‘living in sin’, people who are active preachers of other religions who actively preach against the church in their non-work settings. Do I need to report all of these as well?
I can understand the concept that aiding, abetting, and giving comfort to the enemy can be considered treason, and if I’ve joined the FLDS, or I’m an active supporter of Utah Lighthouse Ministry, I probably shouldn’t be getting a temple recommend. But where utlm is telling the truth, I sometimes agree with them on that specific issue. Hmmm.
* – I deleted the following line from my post: Wait, I’m on a roll…Since any form of deception, including cover-up, is not in harmony with the teachings of the gospel, does supporting and affiliating with church count as a “Yes” too? Oh wait, on that last point, cover-up must be ok because it is accepted by the CoJCoLDS… (ray you can delete this last comment
Another grey area here. Personally, I think I can answer the question with a resounding “No”, although at times I’ve thought of joining another church just to have a different community experience and to experience the good in other churches. Would that preclude me from answering “no” to this question in your humble opinion? And if you think it might, if all churches contain “good” and we only add to the good of other churches. what’s wrong with joining another church that teaches a subset of the good principles we find in the LDS Church? Adn I don’t consider StayLDS an apostate group by any means. Unorthodox — yes, but apostate? No.
In fact, I may well belong to another church — never checked — I was raised and baptized in a church when I was a youngster and to my knowledge, never repudiated my membership in that church when I joined the LDS Church. Wouldn’t surprise me if many new and old converts fall into that category.
I read this question as asking if I support apostate groups specifically in their efforts to undermine or destroy the church or to lead members from the church. This is the definition I use because I’ve jokingly responded dozens of different ways over the years:
– Well, I voted Republican last fall.
– Do my in-laws count? I’m convinced they are close friends with Satan.
– There was a large group of drunk rednecks cursing God and carrying on at our last family reunion but I pretended I didn’t know them so I think I’m safe.
– I read Rough Stone Rolling but in fairness, I bought it at Deseret Book.
Invariably, I get a smile, maybe a chuckle, and a clarifying response that allows me to answer No.
I don’t affiliate with apostate groups because affiliate means to be officially attached or connected to, it’s means to be in the “brotherhood”. Because I don’t share the same values, lifestyles, and beliefs of any organized group of apostates, I’m fine answering No.
My answer is no. It is no because I live a very sheltered life. I would like to talk with some of people in these other groups. Not because I want to join but, I’m curious what makes them tick. I’ve always been that way. I’m not going to change. wayfarer, you said:
Quote:My answer is NO.
It’s a lie. outright. I have a daughter whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She is a lesbian. She drinks. She smokes. Given that there is no “Marriage” option for her, she has sex outside the bounds of marriage often. Yet I support her. I affiliate with her, as often as I possibly can. Sometimes, I even agree with her. I may not agree with her lifestyle — especially the ‘smoking’ part, but I definitely support AND affiliate with an individual whose practices are contrary to the church.
I don’t believe that this is what this question is looking for. If it was, we all would have to answer, yes.
I remember in the “old” days, I went to a bar to “home teach” a friend of mine. I told my Bishop & he was fine with it.
Alittle surprised but fine.
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:I don’t believe that this is what this question is looking for. If it was, we all would have to answer, yes.
Agreed on both counts. In this case, saying “No” answers the intent of the question, but not the letter of the question. In other cases, we answer the letter of the question, even if the intent may be different. I find that to be a little inconsistent.For example, I don’t believe the traditional or LDS definition of the godhead, but I believe in ‘god’, ‘jesus christ’ and ‘holy ghost’ as names for parts of the inspiration process. Since the question isn’t do I accept and believe the LDS definition of godhead, I answer the letter, even if the intent is to see if I have an orthodox belief.
In this case, the intent is to see if I am aiding and abetting the enemies of the church, which of course I am not, but that’s not the letter of the question. So if I answer “no”, i’m answer the intent, not the letter.
Mike wrote:I remember in the “old” days, I went to a bar to “home teach” a friend of mine. I told my Bishop & he was fine with it.
That’s an interesting place for a friend of Bill’s to be…:wtf: I understand completely…NO. However, I must say, in Shawn’s defense, that there are many MANY members of the church who do believe that John Dehlin is an apostate, and those who associate with him via Mormonstories, Mormonstories facebook groups and conferences, and StayLDS, are in fact “apostates” and affiliating with apostate groups.
If you doubt me, spend some time in Cache Valley. Or simple check out the MDB, MDDB or LDS.net boards. Right now there is at least a eight threads talking about JD just at MDB…and that is nothing compared to what happened at MDDB that last two weeks.
No. I read a question that implies an entire focus that is anti-Mormon. “Teachings” in the sentence is plural and all-inclusive, and I have nothing to do with those groups that is supportive in any way. I’ll talk with them, if they can remain civil, but I don’t support, affiliate with or agree with them in their single-minded opposition to the LDS Church.
I think it would be a little interesting in the interview to pose all the vagaries of the question as M&G has. In my case, I’d have to say, “I’m attached at the hip to my parents, who became Evangelical Anti-Mormons after the rift caused by my inability to get a civil and temple wedding on the same day”…does that count? Of course, I’d never say that.
I think you just did. SilentDawning wrote:I think it would be a little interesting in the interview to pose all the vagaries of the question as M&G has. In my case, I’d have to say, “I’m attached at the hip to my parents, who became Evangelical Anti-Mormons after the rift caused by my inability to get a civil and temple wedding on the same day”…does that count?
Of course, I’d never say that.
I think you should say just that. And say it with a smile on your face.
Odds are the interviewer will say “Oh that’s not really what the question means. The church just wants to know if you’re supporting some offshoot like the FLDS.”
Then you smile again and say “Ah. Then No.”
The church itself can’t correctly say no to this one. We work with other faiths all the time who separate from our thin slice of mutual interest actively seek to undermine us. The church has partnered with evangelicals and others on issues where our interests aren’t even that closely aligned, projects like Evergreen. Even the association causes corruption of our own doctrines. Members erroneously believe we are against evolution, are biblical literalists, hate homosexuals, and oppose contraception. I answer the question “no” with a straight face so long as the church can ask it with one. I’m with Wayfarer that it’s poorly worded (I was told in the late 80s that it was narrowly defined to refer to polygamous splinter groups that at the time I didn’t know existed). And I also agree with Old-Timer that I don’t support or affiliate with anti-Mormon sentiments or their aims.
Quote:The church itself can’t correctly say no to this one.
I’ve actually used that line with someone I know very well – with a
He appreciated it, but not everyone asking the question would.
😆 M&G, you’re inspiring me to get a temple recommend again 😆 Hawkgrrl, I find your comments interesting….one thing I’ve noticed is that any organization, whether business or religious that claims to be ethical finds itself a target in many respects, being expected to live up to its own ideals. Your assessment of the church’s own affiliates is an interesting spin on that phenomenon.
- Do you {support|affiliate with|agree with}
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.