Jump to content

kllindley

Members
  • Content Count

    1,393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,670 Excellent

1 Follower

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho

Recent Profile Visitors

1,203 profile views
  1. By saying it is silent on the matter, you absolutely do separate us. Thank goodness Heavenly Father has given us that more.
  2. Bisexuals are more than double the number of gays and lesbians combined. But you'd never know that from the "inclusive" LGBT community.
  3. This is exactly what is frustrating to me. Section 132 doesn't specify that it only applies to heterosexual individuals. It applies to everyone. I don't know why you are so intent on making LGBT individuals a separate class.
  4. I cannot imagine choosing to pursue something that felt so challenging unless I believed that there was no other way to achieve exaltation.
  5. I don't know how to conceive of me making the right decision if the reason for that decision is false. Are you suggesting that God "tricked" me into making the right decision? (Sincere question) That is gracious to say. Thank you.
  6. I do agree that I believe my decision was right for me. Based on the spiritual confirmations that I and my wife have experienced and the way that our family has been blessed, I have a testimony that the teaching that exaltation requires a man and woman sealed together is true. I don't perceive any insensitivity. I admit that I am struggling to understand, but that seems to be mutual. 1) Did you ever answer whether you believe that "exaltation requires a man and a woman sealed together" is true or false? If that is true, then future SSM is off the table (unless we assume a second-class distinction for those sealings, which I suppose I am open to.) If it is false, then I made my decision to pursue a marriage to a woman based on that falsehood.
  7. But you believe the reasons for my decision are false doctrine, unless I misunderstand you. So, are you saying is that you support me in basing my life on an error?
  8. I don't know why it's not a bigger priority. I mean I have a cynical suspicion, but . . .
  9. I specifically identified you as one who made the day harder for me. When ALarson asked me how, I was imprecise in my answer and have since edited it. I apologize for mischaracterizing what it was that made the day harder.
  10. No. Lots of people disagree with me. If you mean support SSM in temples, I'm not sure you can without one being lip-service. A major part of my decision is my belief in the eternal nature of gender complementarity. How can you really support my decision while also hoping that the Doctrinal basis for my decision is repudiated? I will edit it.
  11. I did not mean to suggest that you had. Rather that you may have edited quickly afterward, which is perfectly appropriate. I do think it would depend partly on how you characterize the Church's teachings that marriage is only between a man and woman and that this teaching is not subject to change. But also, I feel it would be dishonest to say that your comments supporting the idea that the Church accept same-sex marriage weren't part of what made yesterday difficult.
  12. First, no. I don't support any ugly posts. These are significantly out of line with what Elder Oaks has consistently taught. Second, my answer was not meant to address only you. You did ask "Why would anything we posted. . . ". To respond to your current question about what you said specifically and because I do value your sincerity, I reread the entire thread. I don't find your comments mocking. If there were any, you later edited them. But my initial sense, had been that you were in the later group. I know you've said you support marriage and chastity, but I specified as taught in the Church. You describe a different concept than the one taught where same-sex relationships are fundamentally incompatibile with the Plan of Salvation. I respect your right to believe differently, to hope that the Church changes to be more in line with your beliefs. I don't believe that makes you bad or evil or cruel. It just doesn't feel like support.
  13. Yesterday's announcement didn't bother me at all. While I supported the policy and understood the need for it, it never made me happy. The hurtful part is the lack of empathy for those of us members who believed and still believe the policy was inspired. It's the lack of support shown when members express hope that the beliefs I've built my life on will be denounced. I guess I expect that from the more bitter former members, but feel frustrated when that comes from fellow Saints.
×
×
  • Create New...