LDS Freedom Forum

As a church have we gotten away from teaching the gospel Repentance to teaching the gospel of acceptance.

oldguy wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:45 pm As a church have we gotten away from teaching the gospel Repentance to teaching the gospel of acceptance.

Are these mutually exclusive?

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:46 pm

oldguy wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:45 pm As a church have we gotten away from teaching the gospel Repentance to teaching the gospel of acceptance.

Are these mutually exclusive?

Yes of course they are. Whereas before we called people to repent and forsake their sins, now the attitude of 'eat, drink, be merry, sleep around, snort crack, march in pride parades and sin however you like for tomorrow we die' prevails.

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:00 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:46 pm

oldguy wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:45 pm As a church have we gotten away from teaching the gospel Repentance to teaching the gospel of acceptance.

Are these mutually exclusive?

Yes of course they are. Whereas before we called people to repent and forsake their sins, now the attitude of 'eat, drink, be merry, sleep around, snort crack, march in pride parades and sin however you like for tomorrow we die' prevails.

No of course they aren't.

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:05 pm

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:00 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:46 pm

oldguy wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:45 pm As a church have we gotten away from teaching the gospel Repentance to teaching the gospel of acceptance.

Are these mutually exclusive?

Yes of course they are. Whereas before we called people to repent and forsake their sins, now the attitude of 'eat, drink, be merry, sleep around, snort crack, march in pride parades and sin however you like for tomorrow we die' prevails.

No of course they aren't.

And I think you are chatting absolute breeze mate. You can't simultaneously call one to repentance and at the same time tell them that their sin is acceptable, good, approved by God, etc.

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:11 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:05 pm

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:00 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:46 pm

Are these mutually exclusive?

Yes of course they are. Whereas before we called people to repent and forsake their sins, now the attitude of 'eat, drink, be merry, sleep around, snort crack, march in pride parades and sin however you like for tomorrow we die' prevails.

No of course they aren't.

And I think you are chatting absolute breeze mate. You can't simultaneously call one to repentance and at the same time tell them that their sin is acceptable, good, approved by God, etc.

Nobody here is trying to do that.

They are saying to call on them to FORSAKE their SIN while at the same time ACCEPT the PERSON regardless of how they choose to adhere to your call to repent and forsake.

Anybody who says the church is preaching to accept the SIN of homosexual individual instead of the INDIVIDUAL themselves is just wrong. This isn’t happening(yet).

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:11 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:05 pm

Luke wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:00 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:46 pm

Are these mutually exclusive?

Yes of course they are. Whereas before we called people to repent and forsake their sins, now the attitude of 'eat, drink, be merry, sleep around, snort crack, march in pride parades and sin however you like for tomorrow we die' prevails.

No of course they aren't.

And I think you are chatting absolute breeze mate. You can't simultaneously call one to repentance and at the same time tell them that their sin is acceptable, good, approved by God, etc.

I have no idea what "chatting absolute breeze mate" means.

I think the problem is in the definition of acceptance.

What comes to my mind when reading the original question is the parable of the loss sheep. We are taught to leave the 99 and go after the 1 to bring them back. It seems that some on this forum would instead say good riddance and kick out about 95 more so as not to somehow contaminate the remaining couple. I would rather accept, with extremely few exceptions related to safety, anybody into our meetings and our community.

"They are saying to call on them to FORSAKE their SIN while at the same time ACCEPT the PERSON regardless of how they choose to adhere to your call to repent and forsake. "

What? I had a choice of how to adhere to repent and forsake.
Maybe I should have chosen to repent and forsake, but with a trial period. Kind of an overlap where I've repented, but at the same time get to carry on with my sins during that trial period. I might have chosen a 10 year trial period.

mike_rumble wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:24 pm "They are saying to call on them to FORSAKE their SIN while at the same time ACCEPT the PERSON regardless of how they choose to adhere to your call to repent and forsake. "

What? I had a choice of how to adhere to repent and forsake.
Maybe I should have chosen to repent and forsake, but with a trial period. Kind of an overlap where I've repented, but at the same time get to carry on with my sins during that trial period. I might have chosen a 10 year trial period.

Cool. Whatever you choose to do, I maintain that your hypothetical lifestyle is wrong and you should forsake this lifestyle immediately, I reject your sin and your lifestyle, BUT I ACCEPT YOU

Zathura wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 2:15 pm
They are saying to call on them to FORSAKE their SIN while at the same time ACCEPT the PERSON regardless of how they choose to adhere to your call to repent and forsake.

This seems to be the point that almost all our our conversations hinge upon and where most disagreement occurs. We all use this terminology of not accepting sin while accepting the person, but we all disagree on what acceptance means and thus we argue.

What does it actually mean to accept the person? This runs the gamut. Some think it improper to even refer to someone's homosexual behavior as violating acceptance. Some think even labeling SSA as something to be overcome violates acceptance. Some think other criteria mean acceptance. And our leaders do not make this any more clear for us as they use these same vague terms but most likely mean different things themselves.

I find these generic statements of love and acceptance to be rather useless without an example of what an implementation of that abstract idea means to you. What do you mean when you call for us to accept an self-identified homosexual who is active in nurturing their homosexual desires through dating and romantic activity? Visit them at home and express love for them and call them to repentance? Invite them to church as long as they don't engage in homosexual activity there? Invite them and their lover to church and treat them as you would any other couple as they openly show affection for each other?

Personally, I feel that we have moved well beyond acceptance of the person to acceptance of their sin, and I feel that this movement is continuing. I think Zathura would say we still do not accept the sin, while JustMe would probably say we have not moved far enough yet to really be accepting of the person.

I'll all about the "accept the person" and love them. But I prefer when people quote Christ rather then citing their favorite professor.

Also, most people I see at church who worship this concept would be mortified if they realized that this applies to accepting racists, Nazis, murderers, convicts, rapists, etc. ... Honestly, accepting their best friend who has a sexual fetish is easy compared to that IMO. If you're going to bludgeon people with 'love and acceptance' they need to realize that it's an All-way street. They just never mention all those other sides of the street, do they?

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 5:42 pm I'll all about the "accept the person" and love them. But I prefer when people quote Christ rather then citing their favorite professor.

Also, most people I see at church who worship this concept would be mortified if they realized that this applies to accepting racists, Nazis, murderers, convicts, rapists, etc. ... Honestly, accepting their best friend who has a sexual fetish is easy compared to that IMO. If you're going to bludgeon people with 'love and acceptance' they need to realize that it's an All-way street. They just never mention all those other sides of the street, do they?

Some very good points and that is why I put the clause "very few exemptions mostly related to safety" in my statement about accepting people.

But even them remember that D&C 76 teaches clearly that all these people you list will be saved through the atonement of Christ into a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding.

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 8:30 pm But even them remember that D&C 76 teaches clearly that all these people you list will be saved through the atonement of Christ into a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding.

That is quite the spin to put on a revelation that describes the inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom as being "thrust down to hell."

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 6:33 am

justme wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 8:30 pm But even them remember that D&C 76 teaches clearly that all these people you list will be saved through the atonement of Christ into a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding.

That is quite the spin to put on a revelation that describes the inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom as being "thrust down to hell."

I trust that your reading comprehension skills are probably greater than mine. Indeed I have often enjoyed your thoughtful contributions to this forum. But I think we all would benefit greatly from rereading 76 over and over and over and carefully considering the deep beauty contained in it. We are indeed basically a universalist church yet many shudder at the thought and deny it. I heard that in the early days many members were deeply troubled by 76 because of its universalism and avoided using it at all in missionary work.

It is as you point out an interesting exercise to reconcile the "thrust down to hell" with "all will be saved" yet 76 contains both.

justme wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 10:08 am I think we all would benefit greatly from rereading 76 over and over and over and carefully considering the deep beauty contained in it. We are indeed basically a universalist church yet many shudder at the thought and deny it. I heard that in the early days many members were deeply troubled by 76 because of its universalism and avoided using it at all in missionary work.

It is as you point out an interesting exercise to reconcile the "thrust down to hell" with "all will be saved" yet 76 contains both.

I just read the revelation over again like you asked. If you accept the traditional LDS interpretation of it (i.e. that after you die you are sent to a kingdom where you stay forever and ever) then it is a very dreary scripture, as it even has some people whom the Book of Mormon says will be saved (i.e. those who died without law) going to the Terrestrial Kingdom.

So think about this: if you inherit the Telestial Kingdom, then you will spend the rest of eternity seperated from God and from your more righteous friends and family. You will live in the company of liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers. You will spend most of your time bitterly regretting the fact that you could be living with God and creating worlds of your own, but never will because during your brief time on Earth, you lied or stole stuff or practiced witchcraft or joined a non-Mormon church, or whatever it was you did to disqualify yourself from a higher glory (people will, of course, disagree on what sins will do the job).

You may have immortal bodies and eat nector and ambrosia and frolick in meadows of asphodel and tread on streets paved with gold and enjoy all the other external trappings of heaven, but it is still hell, hell, hell.

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 12:14 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 10:08 am I think we all would benefit greatly from rereading 76 over and over and over and carefully considering the deep beauty contained in it. We are indeed basically a universalist church yet many shudder at the thought and deny it. I heard that in the early days many members were deeply troubled by 76 because of its universalism and avoided using it at all in missionary work.

It is as you point out an interesting exercise to reconcile the "thrust down to hell" with "all will be saved" yet 76 contains both.

I just read the revelation over again like you asked. If you accept the traditional LDS interpretation of it (i.e. that after you die you are sent to a kingdom where you stay forever and ever) then it is a very dreary scripture, as it even has some people whom the Book of Mormon says will be saved (i.e. those who died without law) going to the Terrestrial Kingdom.

So think about this: if you inherit the Telestial Kingdom, then you will spend the rest of eternity seperated from God and from your more righteous friends and family. You will live in the company of liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers. You will spend most of your time bitterly regretting the fact that you could be living with God and creating worlds of your own, but never will because during your brief time on Earth, you lied or stole stuff or practiced witchcraft or joined a non-Mormon church, or whatever it was you did to disqualify yourself from a higher glory (people will, of course, disagree on what sins will do the job).

You may have immortal bodies and eat nector and ambrosia and frolick in meadows of asphodel and tread on streets paved with gold and enjoy all the other external trappings of heaven, but it is still hell, hell, hell.

I have never considered myself "traditional". I agree that many people may read it from your perspective. I just don't.

justme wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 2:10 pm I have never considered myself "traditional". I agree that many people may read it from your perspective. I just don't.

What perspective do you read it from, then?

Will the people who end up in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms stay there forever? If so, will they be happy there? What sort of person would be happy there?

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 2:55 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 2:10 pm I have never considered myself "traditional". I agree that many people may read it from your perspective. I just don't.

What perspective do you read it from, then?

Will the people who end up in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms stay there forever? If so, will they be happy there? What sort of person would be happy there?

I personally do believe in progression between kingdoms. Yes, I am aware of the statements for and against it and also of the statement from the first presidency that there is no official doctrine one way or the other. I think it may take some much longer than others. And I do think that some may simply choose on their own where to stay. I think that many if not most or almost all will eventually be exalted.

Now none of this in anyway diminishes that evil will be "thrust down to hell" to be buffeted by satan. But the scriptures in 76 are clear that they will be saved by the atonement.