New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[byu71]

While the word apology may not appear in the Bible, a word closely associaed with it does. The word is repent.

As a matter of fact in Genesis 6:6 and Jonah 3:10, God even repents. Since I don't think God can sin, I take repent in these contexts to mean acknowledgement of a mistake.

[Uncle Ted]

While the word apology may not appear in the Bible, a word closely associaed with it does. The word is repent.

As a matter of fact in Genesis 6:6 and Jonah 3:10, God even repents. Since I don't think God can sin, I take repent in these contexts to mean acknowledgement of a mistake.

We need DH ruling on this... is "repent" a synonym to "apology"? I don't see that one at http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/apology

[smokymountainrain]

While the word apology may not appear in the Bible, a word closely associaed with it does. The word is repent.

As a matter of fact in Genesis 6:6 and Jonah 3:10, God even repents. Since I don't think God can sin, I take repent in these contexts to mean acknowledgement of a mistake.

apparently we shouldn't be nice, because the word nice isn't in the scriptures anywhere.

[byu71]

We need DH ruling on this... is "repent" a synonym to "apology"? I don't see that one at http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/apology

I see the words acknowledgement, admission, amends, confession and reparation. I don't remember the repentance process exactly, but I do remember those words.

[jay santos]

[Jeff Lebowski]

I was going to list a bunch of scriptures related to remorse, repentence, acknowledging transgressions, etc., but then I realized how ridiculous an exercise that would be.

And FTR, the church has issued apologies in the past. They did one recently for baptizing dead jews. These apologies and the whole Oaks statement are dissected in this essay:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/

From the essay:

The Church doesn’t apologize for its doctrines. The doctrines come from God, they don’t change and we do not make excuses for them. But everything else is human. We are all fallible. I think we can apologize, and have apologized, for messing things up and figuring things out as we go, and we do that once in a while. But on doctrinal points, the Church does not apologize for taking a strong position on controversial issues. We’re just not interested in public mea culpas for PR purposes.

It always puzzles me when we acknowledge human error in the church, but carve out an exception for doctrine. How is it that doctrine somehow escapes virtually all human influence? And anyone who thinks that LDS doctrine never changes, just hasn't done much studying.

[byu71]

I was going to list a bunch of scriptures related to remorse, repentence, acknowledging transgressions, etc., but then I realized how ridiculous an exercise that would be.

I salute your wisdom.

That is why I listed only a couple dealing with God himself.

[Uncle Ted]

And FTR, the church has issued apologies in the past. They did one recently for baptizing dead jews. These apologies and the whole Oaks statement are dissected in this essay:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/

But I don't think the church used the word "apology"...

Elder Eyring’s remarks didn’t include the words “apology” or “we’re sorry.” But in a follow-up interview church historian Richard Turley said the statement was intended as an apology and that the church “is deeply, deeply sorry” for what happened. On the Holocaust issue, a church spokesman said that the church “sincerely regret[s] that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

But I don't think the church used the word "apology"...

Meaningless nitpicking.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550827/LDS-Church-apologizes-for-Jewish-baptisms-for-the-dead.html?pg=all

[Harry Tic]

Wrote the poet:

[Uncle Ted]

Meaningless nitpicking.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...ad.html?pg=all

It looks like the reporter used the word "apology" and not the church so I guess DHO is still technically correct. Our friends, the Jews, may have put away the rusty pitchforks too soon.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Gays, intellectuals, commies, secularists, women wearing leggings, and lumberjacks who support fluoridated water are not significant threats to the Church.

Irrelevancy is a significant threat to the Church, and parsing the policies of non-apologizing is nothing if not irrelevant.

[SandYFan]

Jefe just banned for three days for posting this poll on CB:

Opinion requested: I don't believe the ban on homosexual sexual activity/marriage is God's will. Am I temple worthy?

That's it. He accuses me of religious trolling for asking a sincere question I have been struggling with for several weeks now.

I met with my bishop tonight. I e-mailed him my thoughts about the this on Monday, and he invited me to come talk to him about it. We talked for about an hour, and these were my takeaways:

1. He agrees with me that he cannot see the harm in homosexual marriage, but if he publicly stated that as a bishop he'd be removed from his position.

2. He feels I am worthy of a temple recommend even if I believe the Brethren are wrong on this topic.

It was a good discussion.

[CardiacCoug]

What's the point of asking a Bishop about something like this?

I think most Bishops will be reasonable (like yours) but doesn't it just cause a lot of unnecessary drama if your Bishop happens to be an idiot?

[SandYFan]

What's the point of asking a Bishop about something like this?

I think most Bishops will be reasonable (like yours) but doesn't it just cause a lot of unnecessary drama if your Bishop happens to be an idiot?

I was prepared for either outcome. If he felt like I wasn't worthy to hold a temple recommend, I was fine with giving it up.