Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

Recommended Posts

On 8/2/2019 at 2:18 PM, CV75 said:

I’m saying it’s you, that you are self-excluding. The Church has not excluded you based on your sexual orientation, and she will include you irrespective of your using it as a basis of inclusion or self-exclusion. Your participation is voluntary and is a full or partial as your willingness to engage.

Alright this has dwindled down to a case of semantics playing.  

On 8/2/2019 at 2:18 PM, CV75 said:

 

You keep focusing on sexuality as the driver for decision-making, whether by the Church or by the individual, when it is irrelevant.

 

From what I can tell, you are excluding the Church (whether fully or partially) because you cannot accept many of the official teachings, policies and positions, and because of how you feel and think. When someone makes his sexuality the basis of choice, he is misunderstanding the official teachings, policies and positions of the Church.

 

Fine.  It is apparent what I call excluding you call something else.  I don’t see the point to continue to quibble sbout it

Share this post


Link to post

Inclusion has become a new definition - now, if one is to be inclusive it means you accept everyone and their choices regardless if they conflict with your choices, desires, and objectives. For a church to be inclusive they must accept an active gay lifestyle regardless of the fact that the church and their scriptures condemn that lifestyle as sin. In other words, inclusive does not mean inclusive; rather, it is code for I accept gay people and deny sin...sin, of almost anything except not being inclusive. Not inclusive the traditional definition, but the code word. 

Got it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Wow, excuse me if I read this wrong, but it appears that God loves everyone! And the church shouldn't ever separate us from Him.

It doesn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe that too (that it's personal revelation unless it's a revelation given to the Prophet for the church and all members.....but we have not seen that as of yet, IMO, on this topic).  I would also add that since we've only heard from a few leaders regarding what they believe (their opinion or beliefs), that it's important for each of us to then pray about it and determine what we believe....or receive our own personal revelation regarding it.

I believe that it's also fine to disagree at times with our leaders opinion's or beliefs or teachings (as long as we don't publicly teach against them, etc.).  They are not infallible.

We know that teachings have indeed changed regarding whether or not being gay can be cured....how can we really know if they will be cured then after this life?  Or that there is even a need for this cure?  I personally find that teaching insulting to those who love or who believe they want to be with a member of the same sex after this life....but I know others disagree.

 

I don’t think you fully understand what I’m saying. It seems to me that unless the prophet or Church leader declares, “On such and such a date and time, at specific location X, while I was engaged in X, the word of the Lord came to me, and here is a transcription of what He said,” that you are inclined to dismiss it as just that much personal opinion that is no more authoritative than what somebody else might say by way of personal opinion.

I’m saying it is hazardous to put conditions on how and when and in what form a leader conveys an inspired message before you will consider hearkening to it as an expression of the mind and will of God. There is <at least> as much danger in that sort of attitude as there is in blind acceptance of every offhand comment a Church leader might make. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think you fully understand what I’m saying. It seems to me that unless the prophet or Church leader declares, “On such and such a date and time, at specific location X, while I was engaged in X, the word of the Lord came to me, and here is a transcription of what He said,” that you are inclined to dismiss it as just that much personal opinion that is no more authoritative than what somebody else might say by way of personal opinion.

I think we add weight and pay attention to what our leader’s opinions are, of course.

But looking at church history, so many of their statements and opinions and what they believed or taught has changed.  Do you disagree?

If not, then each member still needs to pray and study on topics or opinions and get their own inspiration or form personal opinions too.  If it’s a declared revelation or church doctrine, that’s something different (but one still needs to pray on those too I think).

Otherwise, how is it different from blind obedience (which I know is not taught)?

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think we add weight and pay attention to what our leader’s opinions are, of course.

But looking at church history, so many of their statements and opinions and what they believed or taught has changed.  Do you disagree?

If not, then each member still needs to pray and study on topics or opinions and get their own inspiration or form personal opinions too.  If it’s a declared revelation or church doctrine, that’s something different (but one still needs to pray on those too I think).

Otherwise, how is it different from blind obedience (which I know is not taught)?

Is anybody here advocating blind acceptance or obedience? If so, I’ve missed it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Wow, excuse me if I read this wrong, but it appears that God loves everyone! And the church shouldn't ever separate us from Him.

The church doesn’t separate us from God.  We separate us from God.  “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is anybody here advocating blind acceptance or obedience? If so, I’ve missed it. 

So do you agree with how Julie M has described in part the process of understanding what is and isn’t revelation?  If you don’t, where has she misstated it in your belief?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Maybe it’s more that he sees others claiming or believing there has been revelations on this topic (or that it’s taught so it’s doctrine or revealed)?

I was specifically asking about ANY revelation. He said he believes in personal revelation not revelation through prophets or apostles. Like I said, I can respect that. 

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Does anyone believe there has been a revelation about our sexuality after we die?  Any actual doctrine about it?  I am just wondering.  Or are we all just expressing our opinions and hopes?

I absolutely believe there has been revelation on the issue, including actual doctrine.  And many people believe that Church Leaders just got it completely wrong, don't know what revelation is, or are otherwise untrustworthy.  That's fine. I don't understand how someone with that belief would maintain any belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If Church Leaders are so inept at figuring out something like this, why would you trust them about anything. Why believe in God as our Father? Why believe in Jesus Christ's divinity? Why believe in Temple ordinances? Why be a member at all?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is anybody here advocating blind acceptance or obedience? If so, I’ve missed it. 

Did you miss where I stated I know that’s not taught?

How about my other question (or are you dodging answering it 😛)

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I absolutely believe there has been revelation on the issue, including actual doctrine. 

About sex and sexuality after we die?  

I know you’ve really studied this topic and would be very interested in what you’ve found on that!  Can you post them (or links and I’ll find it and read them).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems to me that he believes revelations that have been confirmed for him by the Spirit, something consistent with church teachings imo.

What appears different imo to say my personal position is how he classes possible unconfirmed claimed revelations where I most likely am willing to act as if confirmed for now in trust that it probably is an actual revelation while he is not based on our personal experience with the success of our interpretations with unconfirmed, claimed revelations. 

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/3/2019 at 1:24 PM, california boy said:

No I don't feel included.  I don't think there is any place for me and my partner in the Church.  How could I?  I don't even see how a member could think that gay couples would feel welcome given the fact that the only thing the church could do is excommunicate them.  When I was excommunicated, I felt like it was probably the best thing for both the Church and me..  I don't think it was vindictive. I just think the church has determined that gay couples can't be a part of their organization.  I don't think the Church speaks for God.  They make the rules, not me.  It doesn't really. bother me. That doesn't mean that I don't believe the men running the Church aren't sincere and doing their best to figure out what God wants.  But they are not infallible and they are just trying to figure it out like the rest of those that seek Christ.  I think the Church works well for a lot of people, just not for gays.  For those that find happiness and spirituality within the Church, I wish them well and would never try to pull them away from the Church.

I think this is an example where embracing the person as a human being is is less meaningful to the recipient than is embracing his behaviors and practices.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Alright this has dwindled down to a case of semantics playing.  

Fine.  It is apparent what I call excluding you call something else.  I don’t see the point to continue to quibble sbout it

I wouldn't say semantics so much as degree...  but maybe that's semantic. When someone is included on a personal level but his beliefs and practices are not, is that really so bad? Isn't that what he is also doing, seeking acceptance on a personal level among those with whom he disagrees in belief and behavior?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

About sex and sexuality after we die?  

I know you’ve really studied this topic and would be very interested in what you’ve found on that!  Can you post them (or links and I’ll find it and read them).

Not about sex. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

"As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."

 

https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/beliefs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless we continue to make new marriages in the eternities, what purpose would sexual attraction to someone besides our spouse (or spouses if we end up sealed to all we have married) serve in the eternities?  Definitely makes more sense it goes away unless we become capable of being attracted without lust in some sort of godly manner, perhaps appreciating like we might appreciate art. But attraction to the point of desiring to have a physical relationship with others besides a spouse?  Not sure how that could be godly or purposeful. 

I think that is why D&C 130:2 describes human relationships in terms of "sociality ...coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." If many were raised with the same sexuality they now "enjoy" I don't think much else would get done...!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Calm said:

So do you agree with how Julie M has described in part the process of understanding what is and isn’t revelation?  If you don’t, where has she misstated it in your belief?

Maybe I’m not understanding you.  Has anybody here said anything that contradicts what she has said about the process? More particularly, do you think I’ve done that? 

I don’t see that it is at issue. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Not about sex. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

"As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."

 

https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/beliefs

I see this as part and parcel of the doctrine of resurrection and restoration as taught in Alma. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

The church doesn’t separate us from God.  We separate us from God.  “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

Our central and defining myth has G-d presenting us with mutually irreconcilable commands, each of which carries consequences, and charging us with discovering which has precedence over which. This ensures that we are responsible for the consequences.

G-d doesn't make us distance ourselves from Him. That is merely a consequence of our choice.

Atonement provides us with the solution for the distance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Not about sex. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

"As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."

 

https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/beliefs

Thanks kllindley!

i don’t know if those are declared revelations or church doctrine (more opinions, imo, or current teachings?).  But I certainly understand how you believe this and the hope it gives you (and others too).

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree that all we have heard from a few of our leaders is their opinion.  I respect that this is their belief, but they really do not know it's the truth either, IMO.

So, when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve wrote and published "God Loveth his Children," they were just expressing their opinions?  That despite their expressed witness, they really didn't know the truth? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So do you agree with how Julie M has described in part the process of understanding what is and isn’t revelation?  If you don’t, where has she misstated it in your belief?

I hope he answers my question.  But he may choose not to.

Here it is again, Scott:

But looking at church history, so many of their statements and opinions and what they believed or taught has changed.  Do you disagree?”

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I hope he answers my question.  But he may choose not to.

Here it is again, Scott:

But looking at church history, so many of their statements and opinions and what they believed or taught has changed.  Do you disagree?”

OK. I didn’t see what you were getting at initially. 

I believe that over the years there have been expressions of personal opinion that were not correct. Such expressions typically don’t enjoy the official imprimatur of the Church and have typically fallen by the wayside as they have been superceded by correct teachings. 

Some teachings and commandments are rescinded not because they were incorrect but because times and conditions change. The command to practice plurality if wives in this dispensation falls in that category.

I have agreed repeatedly that it is necessary to seek a personal spiritual affirmation of any teaching. Have I not been clear about that? Why do you continue to badger me on it?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve wrote and published "God Loveth his Children," they were just expressing their opinions?  That despite their expressed witness, they really didn't know the truth? 

Such things are what I have in mind when I distinguish between teachings that have the imprimatur of the Church and those that don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

We don't really know how procreation even works after this life.  Our bodies will be changed.  I think it's pretty ridiculous to believe women will become pregnant (like here) in order to procreate.  I know most women are pretty opposed to that thought :)

I also think it pretty ridiculous to suppose that Heavenly Mother was/is viviparous.

There isn't a lot of revelation or the taket-it-with-a-grain-of-salt pre-birth experiences. Among the few, I find the absence of accounts of pretty much any pre-mortal spirits with immature (child) spirit bodies curious. Indeed, generally a mother with a pre-birth experience will see their yet-to-be-born child as an adult. That's not to say that our pre-mortal spirit bodies didn't go through a child phase ... just that it doesn't seem to be something relevant to our current generation of spirits. But we don't know anything of it.

  • Like 2

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...