October 2019 General Conference

[myboynoah]

I won't be leaving, but I will not engage in any discussions about religion on this site.

I'll probably just post about Pokemon Go and my weekly prediction of BYU losing.

[MartyFunkhouser]

[HBCoug]

I absolutely will discuss the coaching career of one Anthony LaRussa, Jr. Do you remember the time he risked the long term health of his best asset, Albert Pujols, for a meaningless early season game?

Uh, he gave Albert explicit instructions to relay all throws underhanded to Jimmy Edmonds.

[Applejack]

Wait....funk is on the mothership? I knew there was something redeeming about funk other than providing spot on in-game assessments of whether to kill a coach.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Wait....funk is on the mothership? I knew there was something redeeming about funk other than providing spot on in-game assessments of whether to kill a coach.

There is no Doobie in my funk.

[Uncle Ted]

c

I am not sure about the new "Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?" one. I guess my answer will be "Yes, I understand it is not a commandment and that we all don't follow the recommendations very well."

[Green Monstah]

I haven't kept up with the discussion.

I may be wrong on this, but I always thought the "affiliation" TR question was really just to smoke out the polygamists. As it was applied, I think the scope of enforcement was limited. A Snufferite, an FLDS, or someone who joined a group that is overtly antagonistic to the Church would find themselves in deep do-do.

It will be interesting to see how the new rule is applied, I suppose. I could see the scope of its influence being roughly the same, but I think it has potential to go far beyond application of the old question.

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.

[Uncle Ted]

I haven't kept up with the discussion.

I may be wrong on this, but I always thought the "affiliation" TR question was really just to smoke out the polygamists. As it was applied, I think the scope of enforcement was limited. A Snufferite, an FLDS, or someone who joined a group that is overtly antagonistic to the Church would find themselves in deep do-do.

It will be interesting to see how the new rule is applied, I suppose. I could see the scope of its influence being roughly the same, but I think it has potential to go far beyond application of the old question.

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.

Yeah, that is another one makes we scratch my head. I do support same sex marriage and have been to a few of those weddings for friends. So does it come down to giving up my friends?

I do like they dropped the "wearing garments night and day" temple covenant. I don't recall agreeing to that anyway.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.

The church is against trans people having rights? That's new to me.

[smokymountainrain]

Yeah, that is another one makes we scratch my head. I do support same sex marriage and have been to a few of those weddings for friends. So does it come down to giving up my friends?

I do like they dropped the "wearing garments night and day" temple covenant. I don't recall agreeing to that anyway.

support means to take action in some way. unless you are actively campaigning for gay marriage, giving financially to gay marriage advocates, etc, you're golden.

agree with and support are two entirely different things.

[Moliere]

support means to take action in some way. unless you are actively campaigning for gay marriage, giving financially to gay marriage advocates, etc, you're golden.

agree with and support are two entirely different things.

Hmm, does donating cash to and voting for and hoping that a candidate that supports gay marriage rise to the level of support?

If gay marriage were in the ballot in TX, I’d probably support it with a political sign in my yard. I wonder if that would cross the line.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Guys, Elder Christofferson addressed this issue directly back in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.p...74&itype=CMSID

An LDS apostle reaffirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice.

In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

[smokymountainrain]

Hmm, does donating cash to and voting for and hoping that a candidate that supports gay marriage rise to the level of support?

If gay marriage were in the ballot in TX, I’d probably support it with a political sign in my yard. I wonder if that would cross the line.

that's a good question, but based on the D. Todd quotes lebowski posted, you're still golden.

now, the question is, is every SP or Bishop out there on the same page - are they aware or do they remember he said that? would you have to pull that quote out of your back pocket if you "fail" the interview? "but, president, DTC said this..."

[Uncle Ted]

Guys, Elder Christofferson addressed this issue directly back in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.p...74&itype=CMSID

What about my LDS friends that donated to the Beto campaign? Does the bishop need to take away their TRs?

[smokymountainrain]

What about my LDS friends that donated to the Beto campaign? Does the bishop need to take away their TRs?

...

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."