Jump to content

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Posts

    7,348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HappyJackWagon

  1. So...everyone will be a-sxual but still engage as part of a marriage relationship regardless of actual attraction? Sounds like a bummer.
  2. But it might be an important question if there was a requirement that one must be at least 64 inches tall to get into heaven
  3. Mark (and the rest of us) can be pretty slow so I'm glad you explained that to us...again.
  4. I get that, but it doesn't feel like you're answering the question. It's true there are things we don't know, but the church doesn't even allow for the possibility that LGBTQ people can fit into the Plan (as it is currently taught) unless they are no longer LGBTQ. So if you are saying that the atonement will heal LGBTQ from being LGBTQ that would seem to line up with what the church seems to hope will happen. But as far as LGBTQ continuing to exist as LGBTQ in eternity, there doesn't seem to be much hope where the church is concerned. In other words, if you believe LGBTQ is an affliction that will/can be healed, then the LGBTQ community and their families and loved ones are in decent shape. If LGBTQ is NOT an affliction to be healed, then the church doesn't really have any answers or hope for the community.
  5. Thanks for your response. Yes, I think we're all in the process of becoming but I think the question of orientation and how the church treats it is interesting and speaks to whether or not the plan of salvation applies to LGBT or if it only applies to former LGBTQ who become straight in eternity. So anyone who is LGBTQ would need to decide if they believe orientation and identity or traits that will continue or if they will be "healed" of being LGBTQ so that they fit into the plan of salvation. As I see it, LGBTQ don't fit into the plan. Of course that's just my opinion based on what I've seen church leaders say, and what I haven't heard them say. To me that's unacceptable but mileage may vary.
  6. I'm not trying to beat you over the head with logic here but... I'm just hoping you grasp the difference between literal and figurative. You said the re-birth is literal because there is a literal father and mother and water. Those were your criteria for birth so I came up with a silly example that meets those qualifications but that you wouldn't want to accept even though it meets your definition. Instead of bridge and air (which were "acting in the role" of a father and mother), I could claim the father is Pope John and the Mother is Joan of Arc. It doesn't make any difference to me but if you feel it has to be a male and a female, there you go. (FYI-An organization like the church is neither male or female. It's a metaphorical representation.) So now my example fits your definition for birth, a male father, a female mother, and water. Is that now a literal rebirth? And just one comment on your 1st Birth- "Literal immortal Father and literal immortal Mother reproducing themselves as other literal immortal spirits" Are you privy to some doctrine I'm not aware of that explains how spirits are organized/created/born? Or are are you making assumptions based on human biology despite both parties being "immortal" and calling it "literal". Look, my only real gripe here is your all-too-liberal use of "literal" when things are figurative, not literal. I'm done now
  7. So if I claimed to be Born again as a Pastafarian by bridge jumping into a river and called the bridge my father and the air my mother, would that be a "literal" rebirth? It involves a father, a mother, and water. I don't mean this to be sacrilegious in terms of being born again as Christians, just pointing out that there is nothing literal about it and your logic behind why it is "literal" just doesn't hold up.
  8. Esrom, I'm glad you're here. I'd very much like to hear from your perspective. As a gay individual, what do you believe the church teaches about your eternal destiny? In other words, do you believe you will be gay in eternity or will you be healed from an "affliction" of being gay? If you will still be gay, what does the church teach about how you would achieve exaltation? I agree that it would be foolish to assume all LGBT think alike, but I really don't see what the church can offer UNLESS you believe that being LGBTQ is an affliction that will be healed. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  9. Being "Born Again" is a metaphor. You keep saying "literal" but I do not think that word means what you think it means. One could be "spiritually" born with a new father and new mother, but again, that isn't a literal birth. You might even say a "literal" spiritual birth, which may stretch it a little BUT would at least show you understand what "literal" means
  10. Thank you for your response. I always appreciate reading your perspective so when I push back, I hope you realize it is with respect. 1- I think I can get on board with a limited omniscience/omnipotence view. It works well in a deistic paradigm 2- The scriptures are full of scriptures about how God knows our hearts. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her he has already committed adultery in his heart. To some degree at least even the entertaining of sinful thoughts is itself sinful. If a person who hadn't physically committed adultery is still guilty of adultery then it would seem God is most interested in the heart of the person, not simply the actions carried out. 3- It sounds like you are suggesting the church is in some level of apostacy from gospel truths. Or perhaps you believe God commanded the church to jettison some of the truths previously known. 4- Can you imagine communicating with your children in a way that a. They can't understand what you are saying b. they often don't recognize you're communicating at all c. you communicate through a 3rd party they don't personally know to then tell your children what you want them to know ?
  11. I think there needs to be some level of understanding about why God's incomprehensible morality (in such a case) would trump the other. What are the ethics of it? Without explanation and understanding it's just a "because I told you so" kind of situation which really doesn't work for parents once their children are able to reason.
  12. I think a better analogy would be your daughter getting sick. She needs help. Take her to the doctor, help her be healed. Day after day she pleads with you. In response you say nothing. You do nothing. She dies. When you say it isn't possible to prevent all bad things without simultaneously preventing other, greater goods from being attained, are you meaning that God is limited in power to be incapable of preventing all bad things? Perhaps you ignoring your daughter and refusing to take her to the doctor allowed the doctor to meet with another patient, perhaps a father with many children he was responsible for, who also needed her help. By helping the father instead of your daughter, more lives were blessed, therefore you were justified in ignoring your daughter. I'm scratching my head on this one. I'm curious if this "authentic relationship" looks and/or feels similar to any other authentic relationship you've ever had. It seems like an "authentic relationship" may just be a nice thing we tell ourselves to feel closer to a distant God. I can't think of any positive, authentic relationship I've ever had where the other party requires absolute obedience, consistently tests my loyalty, doesn't respond when spoken to, and even plays favorites
  13. I appreciate your efforts to explain your POV. I've heard it suggested before, slightly differently than what you're saying, that God lets atrocities happen so that those individuals will receive proper judgement. But for a God who "knows the heart" of each person, I don't know why he would need to let an atrocity happen to hold someone accountable. If they have a black heart, they have a black heart, whether or not they were thwarted. Do some people need to commit an atrocity so that they hit rock bottom and can then repent. Maybe...I guess. But I'd expect their are other ways people could be humbled without their jackassery being allowed to thwart someone else's agency. I find your analogy of acceptable collateral damage extremely sad. I think it, and many of the worldly experiences we try to superimpose on God as a way of understanding him better (the parent model as another possibility) are often our own constructions in a desperate attempt to understand. So the question for me would be, why would God make it so challenging to understand him. If so much relies on the pre-existence, yet we know very little about that, why doesn't he intervene and explain? It could be done very clearly. But it's not. Why? To test loyalty and faith? We see through a glass darkly because it's dark by design. I don't know any parent who would interact with a child that way. I don't know any parent who would continually require tests of loyalty, even when the information and/or messenger are deeply flawed.
  14. That's good. My experience was different. I was taught 1- worthiness interviews are a time to teach 2- we must protect the sanctity of the temple/priesthood etc. So if there was any question about honesty or understanding we were instructed to take the time to review, teach, and hold accountable. My Stake Presidency would schedule 30 minutes for all of their temple recommend interviews. Sure, there was a little chit-chat but the majority of the time was used to teach correct principles.
  15. Thanks for sharing. I struggle with the "parent" model of God because I've never encountered someone I would consider to be a good parent, who acts (or doesn't act) in the ways I perceive God to act.
  16. Not a different meaning, really. But rather a difference in application. It's the "who" not the "what". I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.
  17. And that is where the LDS faith differs with many other denominations. In many other Christian denominations "worthy" and "worthiness" are often used in referencing God, not individuals. We are NOT worthy, but God is, therefore we can trust God.
  18. Doesn't sound much like God deserving of trust or worship, does it? The agency argument is just another attempt to explain and understand, if we believe in a loving, caring God who intervenes in our lives, Why can't he be relied upon when I need him most? Is he too busy respecting the agency of the abuser? Is he busy clipping his nails? The why doesn't really matter because it will ALWAYS be an unsatisfying answer. Unless, perhaps, God as creator has set his plan in motion but doesn't intervene at all (either as a policy or a limitation of his power). God is either a respecter of persons or he isn't.
  19. I think this is a really good point. Yet we treat callings as if a person was called of God as a default. So I think the church has created the expectation of discernment as the norm even though it isn't doctrinal or scriptural.
  20. Excellent comments. But that's part of the problem. I may truly believe God unmistakably intervened by saving me from a ticket or the accident or the lack of snow cones, but when I share that story with others and they wonder why God didn't save their mother from the drunk driver, or their infant from cancer, I have to think my testimony of unmistakable intervention will either A- not be believed and actually damage faith because it doesn't match other people's experience where God didn't intervene even though the pleaded with him to intervene B- make God look like a capricious jerk or C- make them question their worthiness or God's love for them. Personally, I find the non-helicopter-God model to be much easier to reconcile
  21. Yes- that is an age old question. Why does God allow suffering, sometimes horrendous suffering, yet will then intervene in relatively trivial ways? For me the answer ended up being belief in a deistic approach to God, meaning that God exists but rarely (if ever) intervenes. Which then means that all of the tender mercies attributed to God (like finding lost car keys) really have nothing to do with God because he doesn't intervene in such things. Some people don't like that form of 'distant' God, but it does make it more palatable to accept humans being human and making mistakes without god intervening, like in this story of this abusive bishop. Of course in the church Revelation and an intervening God is essential to the restoration, which then leaves subscribers to the idea of an interventionist God trying to justify why He allows such atrocities while simultaneously blessing some people with trivial things.
  22. Specific to car keys? Maybe not. But I know I've heard that one before. But that example is used to show how people do testify of God intervening for small, inconsequential issues (like car keys). I've heard stories about keys, about the prompting to slow down just before coming across a police officer, thus saving a ticket. I've heard someone testify about not having enough money to get their child a snow cone and then the next minute hearing an ad for free snow cones on the radio. These testimonies are generally shared to express how God knows and cares for each and every one of us and will intervene with tender mercies, which is nice. Yet it leaves the question of "why help the person find car keys or get a snow cone but not help the child avoid continued abuse?" One person's faith affirming story can lead to someone else's WTF God? stories.
  23. True, but a metaphor is an actual figure of speech which could just as easily be used in writing. A symbol is just a symbol, like a house is a house. You seem to be thinking a symbol is symbolism. The symbol itself is not a literary device but symbolism (the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities) is.
  24. That statement will make some people mad...but... excellent point. One of the major cracks in my shelf came from similar(ish) experiences where I could not accept that leaders had any kind of discernment or even wisdom in some of the people they chose for leadership positions. Obviously discernment, in addition to being a spiritual gift, relies on the individual to receive and exercise that gift. So when a guy is called as bishop, and I know he and his wife beat 2 of their daughters, and I say something to the SP prior to the calling, but they call him anyway, I have zero confidence in the discernment of that leader. Which then makes me question the discernment of any leader.
  25. A metaphor is definitely a literary device. A symbol in and of itself is not. However the use of symbols in writing would be a literary device.
×
×
  • Create New...