Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are there any other conditions or identities that you would personally place beyond the curative reach of the Atonement without a specific revelation to the contrary?

Many don’t consider being gay a condition or disease or that a gay person is in need of being cured.  I think that’s what much of this discussion comes down to.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Many don’t consider being gay a condition or disease or that a gay person is in need of being cured.  I think that’s what much of this discussion comes down to.  

Precisely. To argue that Christ can't or won't fix all faithful and repentant sinners is a distraction from the real disagreement: is the millennia-old standard of Christian sexual morality -- vigorously reinforced, for Latter-day Saints at least, by men claiming to be authorised prophets -- really of God or not?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Precisely. To argue that Christ can't or won't fix all faithful and repentant sinners is a distraction from the real disagreement: is the millennia-old standard of Christian sexual morality -- vigorously reinforced, for Latter-day Saints at least, by men claiming to be authorised prophets -- really of God or not?

Absolutely no one is saying that Christ will or need to fix anyone to fit a post mortal standard. He has never stated that. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

curative

Perhaps “refining” is a term more in line with how some view homosexual as not needing to be cured, however all mortal qualities will be in some fashion refined and perhaps to a degree that the refined is unrecognizable in comparison to the natural man.

A diamond in the rough may not even be recognized as a cut and polished diamond, but there is still nothing inherently wrong with it. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Absolutely no one is saying that Christ will or need to fix anyone to fit a post mortal standard. He has never stated that. Ever.

I think you and I may be discussing very different men then. I'm referring to the Christ Who came into the world specifically to save people from their sins.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Absolutely no one is saying that Christ will or need to fix anyone to fit a post mortal standard. He has never stated that. Ever.

Quote

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Matt :21

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you and I may be discussing very different men then. I'm referring to the Christ Who came into the world specifically to save people from their sins.

 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Matt :21

Saving one from sin is not the same as fixing supposed flaws. Christ never inferred that he would make gay people straight. That would be to assume that something needs to be fixed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Saving one from sin is not the same as fixing supposed flaws.

Mate, I think you may have just won an internet award for this statement!

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that inspiration given to an authorized servant of God which he then conveys to others through his teachings constitutes revelation, whether or not it is explicitly labeled so by the authorized servant of God. You will say that I’m in a vulnerable position with that belief. I believe you are the one who is on shaky ground if you resist inspired instruction and warning just because it doesn’t come to you in the form you require or expect. 

At a conference in Honolulu Hawaii, in 1961 Joseph Fielding Smith made this statement over the pulpit

Quote

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. 

This meets the exact same criteria as Elder Hafen's remarks.  Is this also revelation from God?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

That would be to assume that something needs to be fixed.

Do you believe there is any part of mortal humans that are flaws, that needs to be fixed in order to be with God?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, kllindley said:

Most of that, I get. My problem is when he suggests that those of us who believe Leaders are speaking from revelation are deluded because he knows it really isn't revelation.  

Elder Hafen didn't say "This is just my opinion that. . . " President Oaks, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, Elder Cook, Elder Anderson and the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve didn't say, "We really don't have any guidance from God, but we're convinced our personal opinions must be correct."  It's true that they did not say "The voice of the Lord came to me saying: . . . ". But they have made clear declarations of Gospel truth. 

Wait a minute.  I never said anyone is deluded.  I am simply stating that no general authority has ever said that the policies/doctrine on gay issues have come from God.  

" President Oaks, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, Elder Cook, Elder Anderson and the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve also didn't say, "God has revealed to us."  And this is my point.  People assume that when Church leaders speak for God they make life changing decisions on those assumptions.  My life is a cautionary tale.  And let me be clear, it is my LIFE I am talking about, not some sunday school raise my hand and make a comment issue.  This issue was so divisive that my family didn't have anything to do with me for 13 years.  Look at how divisive this issue is in the Church today.  Look how divisive this issue is on this board.  This attitude of "lets all believe it came from God because Church leaders have agreed on an opinion is a very dangerous attitude to take for some people.  Others, it probably won't affect their lives and they can assume anything they want without causing severe pain and sorrow.

Without any declaration from those authorized to do so, Church teachings on this issue is all opinion.  And it is up to each individual to go before God and pray about these issues, with an open mind and an open heart.  So many on this board have listened to the words of  " President Oaks, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, Elder Cook, Elder Anderson and the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and that is enough for them.  I guess if you are not gay, then that may very well be all one needs.  But to come on this board and state that THIS is the will of God revealed to the prophet is just not a statement they can make.  And they can not say that if someone has a different opinion then they are going against the revealed word of God.  

Church leader's opinions are often in sync with the will of God.  But church history is littered with opinions touted as "doctrine"  that proved not to be true.  Why would this issue be an exception to all those other examples of just opinions by Church leaders.  What I am saying is that the opinion of God is the only opinion that matters and one must go to Him to receive what that answer is for themselves.  Perhaps the reason why God has not revealed a revelation on this matter is because there is no one correct answer.  For some, then marriage with the same gender is absolutely wrong.  For others, it may not be.  Honestly, Kindley, when I had sex with my wife when I was married, it felt like something I should not be doing.  I think that is true for a lot of gay people, but obviously not all gay people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Imagine a person with dwarfism being told that in the resurrection their body will be "regular size".
Imagine a person with albinism being told that they will have "regular" skin pigment.
Imagine a person who can't roll their tongue or wiggle their ears being told they now can or can't.
Imagine a polydactyl being told they won't have their sixth finger on the left hand.
Imagine a person with homosexual sexual attraction being told they won't have that kind of sexual attraction anymore.
Imagine a sociopath being told they'll now have regular empathetic reactions in their brain.
Imagine a schizophrenic being told they won't hear the pretty music anymore.
Etc. etc. etc.

There is so very, very much that is mortal to our bodies and though our resurrected bodies will be like our physical bodies, there will most definitely be differences even if I and we have no details on that. While california boy and others may recoil in horror that their resurrected bodies may not be exactly the same as their physical bodies now are, I am perfectly fine claiming that our bodies will be better. And if that means I have to give up whatever attachment I have to an imperfection that is present in immortality -- no matter how important to the identity I give myself in this fallen, mortal, comparatively dreary, wasteland -- so be it.

Imagine a blonde person being told they mush have black hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine a person with blue eyes being told they must have brown hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine black people being told they must have white skin because that is the way the majority are created.

Imagine an Asian being told they eyes will be fixed so they are more rounded like all the other people God created.

Imagine Marlin Monroe being told her beauty mark must be removed because it is a blemish on her skin.

Imagine Jimmy Durante being told his nose has to be smaller because it is too big.

Imagine Whitney Huston being told she must give up her voice because most people don't sing like that.

For some reason I am expecting and hoping that heaven will be just as diverse and just as interesting as life on earth.  Maybe you imagine a heaven full of clones who are all alike.  I do not.

Being gay is not a birth defect, it is a variation. My body is fine just the way I am.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/2/2019 at 2:45 PM, USU78 said:

I read Elder Oaks' statements on the subject to be in the nature of:  "We are living in Babylon now and henceforth will have very little ability to affect changes to/preservation of the Good, as much as that pains us -- "

One might apply the use of figurative "Babylon" to the whole world, or one might choose to understand the American Constitution (Prof Oaks taught constitutional law in Chicago, and oversaw its application as a Utah Supreme Court justice) as regulating pluralism in an American Babylon.  Contrary to what Elder Oaks says here, that means freedom of religion and freedom of speech as the bulwarks of protection for missionaries and prophets who wish to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  What's not to like?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I prefer tuned rather than turned.  I don't think we are inherently heterosexual as demonstrated by certain communities where homosexual behaviour is considered the norm.

No one is inherently English speaking or Spanish speaking, it isn't that everyone starts out as a Spanish or English speaker but then gets diverted.  And one language in their home may or may not end up being their primary language depending on what else they pick up in their environment.  It depends on all of their upbringing, not just parental. 

Children have a tendency to learn language and also to learn orientation imo.  What language is most likely dependent on what they see those around them doing.  Orientation is likely dependent in much the same way, but since sexuality isn't as limited as language in behaviour, there are also other ways influence can occur.  Perhaps an analogy could be how one person speaks English in a family with little variation in cadence or tone while another is very expressive and uses their hands and facial expressions as well....where did each pick up the habit? And when.  The difference in speaking styles between my two granddaughters was apparent as soon as they began to talk and becomes more so as they age, with refinement coming from activities and interests and friends they hang out with, for example.

The majority of those who experience some amount of homosexual attraction also experience sexual fluidity. To draw conclusions about orientation primarily from the experiences of the smallest group (always and only experience same sex attraction, 2% iirc) is poor science, imo. 

I am sorry, but this is not comparable to being gay at all.  I have 5 brothers and sisters.  We all were taught English by our parents and community.  None of us just came out speaking Spanish while everyone else speaks English.  None of us ever started speaking Spanish because we met someone who said Buenos Dias.

Being gay is not some slight accent to being straight.  It is completely different sexual preference.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

How can the church be forgiven for something which they have 1) not apologized for and 2) notasked forgiveness for? There seems this aversion to either of those because the institution cannot be seen as admitting fault or wrongdoing. Can the institutional church repent publicly before God and all creation for its wrongdoing? Yes. Will it? Absolutely not. Never. Not a chance. Such an act would cause insecurity and question sovereignty. 

I don't know that any of that is true, but those who demand groveling admissions of guilt and fault forget Jesus' admonition to forgive even your enemies, to be kind to those who despitefully use you and abuse you.  The prayer mode he taught was to ask for forgiveness based on first forgiving your enemies (those who have trespassed against you).  So why the always and ever one-sided demands?  Is it always going to be about vengeance and getting even?  I know that marriage and family relations cannot proceed on that basis, and most diplomats understand very well that constant scapegoating will not advance one's cause.

Moreover, the LDS Church has not changed its theology, but only sought a modus vivendi, an accommodation, if you will.  Just like Orthodox Judaism and evangelical Christianity, LDS theology still defines homosexual activity as wrong.  There is unlikely to be any sort of change in that fact.  So what are the demanded apologies for?  What purpose do they serve?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I should think it would bring the greatest hope to those who are gay but desire to follow God’s plan and commandments in all things. 

This here is exactly why I constantly point out that there has never been a revelation from God on any gay issue.  Scott is making an assumption that if you don't follow the opinion of Church leaders than you have no desire to follow God's plan and commandments.  

I doubt very much that there is anyone on this board including Scott who has prayed and fasted and cried and prayed some more to seek answers from God more than I have.  I doubt that any general authority has spent as much time on their knees praying about this issue than I have.  I may be wrong about that but I highly doubt it.  I can testify to you that after all of those prayers and pleadings, there is a peace within my heart that God loves me and wants me to experience life with a companion I can love and cherish just as much as His other children.  And that is God's plan for me. There is a God given yearning born within us that longs for love and companionship.  That is part of God's plan as well.  

 

I remember not too long ago when you told me that Elder Nelson's statement that the Oct policy was the official revelation that I was demanding.  It has been rescinded.  So now what? 

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Imagine a blonde person being told they mush have black hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine a person with blue eyes being told they must have brown hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine black people being told they must have white skin because that is the way the majority are created.

Imagine an Asian being told they eyes will be fixed so they are more rounded like all the other people God created.

Imagine Marlin Monroe being told her beauty mark must be removed because it is a blemish on her skin.

Imagine Jimmy Durante being told his nose has to be smaller because it is too big.

Imagine Whitney Huston being told she must give up her voice because most people don't sing like that.

However, we are not told (rightly or wrongly) all exalted will be husband and wife because the majority of relationships are heterosexual, but because the man and woman relationship is the one which is procreative. iOw, the definition serves a purpose and is not just the popular position.

This belief about eternity may be wrong, but it has foundation and a reasonable one at that given man’s current and past experience with reproduction though this might be changed in the future due to science. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, we are not told (rightly or wrongly) all exalted will be husband and wife because the majority of relationships are heterosexual, but because the man and woman relationship is the one which is procreative. iOw, the definition serves a purpose and is not just the popular position.

This belief about eternity may be wrong, but it has foundation and a reasonable one at that given man’s current and past experience with reproduction though this might be changed in the future due to science. 

You are right, we are not told.  We don't know how procreating spirits happens.  I totally understand from a heterosexual point of view, this seems perfectly logical.  And since what has been said has always come from a heterosexual, I wouldn't expect anything different.  Assumptions can be made on both parts of this issue.  It doesn't really mean either opinion is how it will be.

What happens after we die is all speculative. I think we should keep that in mind when telling others what will or won't happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

What happens after we die is all speculative

But it isn’t all speculative if one believes the revelations about the afterlife, including eternal families and marriage, to Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith are actual revelations. And Wilford Woodruff had a revelation about sealing families together as well. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One might apply the use of figurative "Babylon" to the whole world, or one might choose to understand the American Constitution (Prof Oaks taught constitutional law in Chicago, and oversaw its application as a Utah Supreme Court justice) as regulating pluralism in an American Babylon.  Contrary to what Elder Oaks says here, that means freedom of religion and freedom of speech as the bulwarks of protection for missionaries and prophets who wish to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  What's not to like?

If the Book of Mormon teaches anything, it teaches that both individuals and peoples have the freedom to make lousy decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Imagine a blonde person being told they mush have black hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine a person with blue eyes being told they must have brown hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine black people being told they must have white skin because that is the way the majority are created.

Imagine an Asian being told they eyes will be fixed so they are more rounded like all the other people God created.

Imagine Marlin Monroe being told her beauty mark must be removed because it is a blemish on her skin.

Imagine Jimmy Durante being told his nose has to be smaller because it is too big.

Imagine Whitney Huston being told she must give up her voice because most people don't sing like that.

For some reason I am expecting and hoping that heaven will be just as diverse and just as interesting as life on earth.  Maybe you imagine a heaven full of clones who are all alike.  I do not.

Being gay is not a birth defect, it is a variation. My body is fine just the way I am.  

I don't imagine heaven as being full of clones, not at all. I personally and fully expect a great deal of diversity. So I think I didn't get my point across well enough.

1) our immortal bodies will in some tangible ways be different from our physical bodies
2) what we perceive as desirable in the eternities will in some tangible way be different than what we perceive as desirable in the eternities
3) the differences can range from trivial to profound, but what is trivial and what is profound is subjective to the individual

You are fine with being gay right now in mortality. When you die, your opinion won't suddenly change either. But that doesn't mean it won't as we come to further understand the economy and society of the heavens. It doesn't mean my ideas won't change either. Indeed, I'm absolutely confident that I don't have it figured out and that in many things I will change my ideas. The prophets of God have given their perspectives on a tiny portion of the issues. I weigh their views more than you do but I'm ultimately still just as ignorant.

My father used to say that the most arrogant position to take is "I don't know what the right answer is, but I know you're wrong."
That's my position. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are there any other conditions or identities that you would personally place beyond the curative reach of the Atonement without a specific revelation to include them?

"Other"?  I would not include being gay as being a part of what you describe here.  The teaching that being gay can be cured used to be taught by our leaders, but that teaching has changed.  So being gay is not some malady or disease that is "curative" as some seem to continue to believe here.

Quote

 

cur·a·tive

adjective

1.

able to cure disease.

 

 

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Imagine a blonde person being told they mush have black hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine a person with blue eyes being told they must have brown hair because that is how the majority are created.

Imagine black people being told they must have white skin because that is the way the majority are created.

Imagine an Asian being told they eyes will be fixed so they are more rounded like all the other people God created.

Imagine Marlin Monroe being told her beauty mark must be removed because it is a blemish on her skin.

Imagine Jimmy Durante being told his nose has to be smaller because it is too big.

Imagine Whitney Huston being told she must give up her voice because most people don't sing like that.

For some reason I am expecting and hoping that heaven will be just as diverse and just as interesting as life on earth.  Maybe you imagine a heaven full of clones who are all alike.  I do not.

Being gay is not a birth defect, it is a variation. My body is fine just the way I am.  

I’d invite you to consider how Jesus answered the question “what lack I yet?”

If there is anything more important to any of us than Celestial life, we will be asked to give it up.  What you are asked to give up may be different than what I will be asked to give up because we may value different things.

If we’re unwilling to give it up, my belief is that we’ll keep it, and forsake what we might have had if we were willing to, figuratively, place it on the alter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

You are right, we are not told.  We don't know how procreating spirits happens.  I totally understand from a heterosexual point of view, this seems perfectly logical.  And since what has been said has always come from a heterosexual, I wouldn't expect anything different.  Assumptions can be made on both parts of this issue.  It doesn't really mean either opinion is how it will be.

What happens after we die is all speculative. I think we should keep that in mind when telling others what will or won't happen.

Exactly.  None of us really know what will happen after we die.  We all have chosen who we believe, so we then have our own beliefs and hopes.  

In that, we are all alike here.  

I believe that our creator is loving and just.  I cannot imagine Him telling one person they can be with their spouse who they love dearly and then telling another who has also done their best to lived a Christ like life, that they will be "cured" of that and will no longer want to be a family with them in heaven.  But to fix this being unjust, many tell themselves that God will change that person in a way that he will be happy he's been changed (and other speculative statements), so no worries.    

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, california boy said:

.....................................

Being gay is not some slight accent to being straight.  It is completely different sexual preference.

 

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Imagine a blonde person being told they mush have black hair because that is how the majority are created.

...............................

For some reason I am expecting and hoping that heaven will be just as diverse and just as interesting as life on earth.  Maybe you imagine a heaven full of clones who are all alike.  I do not.

Being gay is not a birth defect, it is a variation. My body is fine just the way I am.  

I am under the impression that the LDS Church and science both agree now that same sex preference is not a choice, so where does this claim that everybody is being told that they must be hetero come from?  The LDS Church is not seeking legislation to require everyone to be heterosexual, or even to require all marriages to be between a man and a woman only.  In the past, the LDS Church, most states, and even the Feds wanted same sex marriage to be illegal.  I thought that issue was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that everyone is now on board with the new concept of civil liberties including SSM.  I thought we all accepted those norms.  Yet you seem to be battling all the old wars over again.  Is there no end to it?

I think that we have come a long way as a nation, and that real pluralism has been enhanced.  Am I wrong?

Or is it just LDS theology which has got you so exercised?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...