- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I answer the question “no” with a straight face so long as the church can ask it with one.
The elegance of this sentence has me laughing on the floor.That said, I find the following verse, coming from Joseph Smith, both incredibly true, and incredibly ironic:
Joseph Smith, in D&C10:28, wrote:Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.
I’m very late to this party. I voted No for all of the reasons everyone else shared. I answered yes, but that is a literal answer to the question. The question is very flawed. If they mean something else, they should ask a different question. I would tell that to the interviewer in a TR renewal situation. I’m married to a beautiful and wonderful “apostate.” So how else could I answer? Unless we live in a cave with very limited human contact, the vast majority of members (including the highest church leaders) support, affiliates with, and at times agrees with apostates.
I will make the assumption that Ed Decker (of Godmakers fame) liked chocolate ice cream. I like chocolate ice cream too. He’s an apostate if there ever was one, and we agree on liking chocolate ice cream. So there you go. I agree with at least one obvious apostate.
If an apostate is right about something of spiritual importance, then I support and agree with them.
I’ll take it one step further — apostates, those who fight against the church, should be seen as souls who are most in need of our love and support. They can’t get that unless we affiliate with them. If Jesus were here today, I really doubt you would find him first in the temple or in the conference center. You would find him in the stripper bars, in war zones, and on the drug-pusher street corners. He’d be going after the “lost sheep” and the “prodigal sons” [and daughters] first.
Brian Johnston wrote:I’ll take it one step further — apostates, those who fight against the church, should be seen as souls who are most in need of our love and support. They can’t get that unless we affiliate with them. If Jesus were here today, I really doubt you would find him first in the temple or in the conference center. You would find him in the stripper bars, in war zones, and on the drug-pusher street corners. He’d be going after the “lost sheep” and the “prodigal sons” [and daughters] first.
And this is precisely what Jesus meant when he said “Be ye therefore perfect”:Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote:Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
What does being ‘Perfect’ have to do with loving enemies? It’s because Jesus is saying that we should not be ‘partial’ to our friends and shun/hate our enemies (there is no scripture saying ‘hate’, but the jews did have reasons to shun).Note the reference to Father in heaven providing sun and rain on everyone —
impartially. God is not a partisan, he is not ‘partial’ to his elect, notwithstanding anything Calvin said. God is not partial, he is the opposite of it, and the greeks used the term “telios” to imply impartiality, or completeness in providing sun and rain to all. The greek word for this ‘completeness’ is ‘telios’, which the king James translators translated as ‘perfect’, in verse 48. And this is the ultimate irony of LDS obsession with ‘purity’, with ‘perfection’: that in the process of trying to be morally and otherwise ‘perfect’ and ‘pure’, we are encouraged to avoid influences that might draw us away from that pure world. We shun moral degenerates and apostates because Jesus told us ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
Affiliating with apostates in love is what it means to be perfect. Let’s try it this way: Modernized Matthew wrote:Ye have heard it said to love your neighbor, but avoid apostates and morally impure people. But I say unto you, love apostates, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the republicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the republicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Forgive my modernization of ‘publican’
wayfarer wrote:Forgive my modernization of ‘publican’
Are you trying to claim that Republicans will eventually receive forgiveness? I’m not sure I can buy that.
😈 Two comments on this thread since Wayfarer bumped up the list: 1) With the recent events on MormonThink, does anyone rethink their views?
2) I just want to revisit MNG’s completely awesome post:
mercyngrace wrote: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.
:clap: When I feel feisty I answer “Yes, the Republican Party” and watch him squirm for a moment. Since my original post, I have changed my answer, today, to “YES”. After explaining my many reasons why, I still pass… Priesthood roulette.
I answered “NO” because I was told during my first Temple recommend interview that it was meant as groups/organizations/people who are actively trying to harm the church. And to “affiliate with them” meant that I supported them with either my time or money. It never crossed my mind that the question could mean to associate with family members / friends / etc that are not living “gospel standards” would make someone unworthy to attend. I always imagined that the question meant “are you trying to sneak into the temple so you can record it or film it” basically. I wouldn’t hesitate to answer no even though I listen to Mormon stories podcasts, etc. To me everyone has faith struggles and doubts, and doubts also wouldn’t preclude entrance.
Btw, I don’t consider involvement with online people, apostasy, regardless of their views. Yall seem like good people to me.
In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light. In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can’t help it. because I have to associate with them doesn’t mean I support or affiliate with them.
DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can’t help it. because I have to associate with them doesn’t mean I support or affiliate with them.
My understanding was the same on both of these, but I assume in the last few years for some leaders the support of LGBT issues now comes into play.
LookingHard wrote:DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can’t help it. because I have to associate with them doesn’t mean I support or affiliate with them.
My understanding was the same on both of these, but I assume in the last few years for some leaders the support of LGBT issues now comes into play.
I’m sure leadership roulette does come into the picture here – fortunately we are saved by the “no probing” clause. I used to be opposed to gay marriage. I live in a state where it has been legal for a few years. I have adopted a “live and let live” philosophy – if gays want to marry, fine, it’s their lives and their choices. I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about LGBT issues, but while I think it’s up to churches to decide if they want to perform gay marriage or not, I don’t support or affiliate with either side. Thus I can answer the question appropriately, as most of us probably can.
I am trying to draw parallels with other doctrines/practices. So I do not drink and I am fine with the church holding this as a requirement for things like a temple recommend. But I am OK with others drinking and I find it politically stupid to try and stop it (the last time the US tried, it didn’t really work at all – IMHO). The church does not seem to be pushing for the entire US and/or world to be ‘dry’ / adopt a prohibition stance. No members have been asked to contribute to pro-prohibition legislation. So to take that same stand on same-sex-marriages, I am fine with the church saying they don’t support it. But from a political perspective I think the church has a right not to perform SS marriages, but I don’t think I should not be pushing it’s perspective/standards on others or asking members to contribute to blocking SS marriage initiatives.
What isn’t all that clear to me (or within the leadership of the church) what is considered not acceptable views/behaviors. Some local leadership view these different than others. Members don’t know where the line is in their ward/stake.
DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
That’s how it was presented to me as well. The first time I was interviewed the person conducting the interview offered up a similar explanation without me prompting for one. I take it the interviewer thought the question was a strange one to ask or at a minimum they felt the question wasn’t very clear. Either way their explanation of the question made it clear that they were steering me to answer “no” to the question.
That said, the experience was long ago and as we know the TR interview evolves. Not only do the questions change over time, but the intent of the question may also change. This question probably relates less and less to polygamy as time distances the church from the practice. Given the challenges today’s church faces, I can see how leaders would interpret the question differently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.