- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I meant to move these both to the parking lot but moved them here accidentally. 🙄 But then you don;t have to go down to the parking lot to look at them. I have concerns about both of them, just wanted to see what you think and work on consensus.I have fewer concerns with the Trump one, it’s just a little too “politicy” for me. My question is how the heck has this individual gotten along with everyone who holds any different belief than him/her all these years? Is it a real concern, or is it anti-Trump? I’m not fan of Trump, I did not vote for him – but I don’t vilify him. Honestly I don;t think he needs any help in that respect.
The sex post is just too detailed for my liking and we sort of went down this road several months ago. I’m not sure how this helps anyone StayLDS.
I am ok with the trump one. I would recommend a moderator warning suggesting that is stay limited to how to fellowship with people who see things differently than you. Attacks against president elect Trump or his former opponent will not be tolerated. I actually had an anxiety attack the night of the election and might find this discussion helpful. I am not ok with the sex one. It honestly seems fake to me. I do imagine that someone is wanting to stir the pot somewhat and get perspectives on how far you can push the limits and still obey the LOC. I find it hard to swallow that these two active church members got married/sealed 1.5 years ago and now equally want to be swingers. It just seems too neat and tidy in my opinion.
I’m OK with the trump one in light of support, not politics, but he sounds like he is seeking support. The extra marital one … I agree with Roy…Doesn’t seem real and I don’t know how people in our community would have much to reply to it…but I bet it would drive some traffic to the site….just the wrong traffic, huh?
I think we need to open the Trump one. This is an important topic from a faith crisis perspective. I’m fine with opening the Trump one as well. I just thought we might need to be on the same page as far as making it more about dealing with differences generally than being anti-Trump and political. As an aside, I did mention to my SP today when he privately brought up the POX that I thought the next big thing was going to be exactly what this guy is talking about – differences of political opinion. I think this could be a growth time for diversity within the church and see it as positive. Even otherwise “devout” Republican members are having some cognitive dissonance and paradoxical questions related to this election. On the sex one, I agree it could be fake and I do see it as pot-stirring/trolling. I actually wouldn’t be opposed to editing out the detail and answering that the law of chastity is pretty clear with a direct link to LDS.org.
I like having the Trump one active, with the note you added. Good job. The sex one . . . WOW. Definitely not a topic I think we can manage properly within our mission. (“Um, no, there is no way to square those things combined with the teachings of the Church. Consentual BDSM, within the confines of your own marriage is one thing; multiple partners is quite another.”) I don’t want to open a discussion of the appropriateness of BDSM within marriage on a site with so many orthodox lurkers and the traffic we probably would get as a result.
I would let it sit unapproved and see if the person who wrote it takes the hint. We always can send a private message if they try to post it again.
A big fat no to the sex one. And no means no. I happened upon the Hindenberg’s post on another site today. Exact wording. She also mentioned that it had been posted and shut down on another site (which had comments so it wasn’t ours). I’m just disapproving and deleting. She has a very “unique” interpretation of the law of chastity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.